Rod Dreher: The Establishment's Failure to See the Appeal of Trump Represents Their Own Limitations, Not Trump Supporters'

Before getting to that, I know the Trump supporters want me to note that new polls suggest that yesterday's WSJ/NBC most-likely-an-outlier poll is in fact most likely an outlier.

A CBS poll, conducted mostly after the South Carolina debate (one day of polling was before/during it), puts it, nationally, at:

Trump 35%

Cruz 18%

Mario 12%

Kasich 11%

The poll notes that Kasich is in a statistical tie for third place with The Only Man Who Can Win The GOP's College-Proud Cohort.

In Fox's new poll of South Carolina, it's Trump 32, Cruz 19, Mario 15.

Rod Dreher has a good post on Trump's appeal -- and why that appeal eludes the Establishment types.

It's worth your time.

Let me analogize to the Democrat Party: The Democrat Party can be divided into two groups. (Let me say right away that any sentence starting with the words "X movement can be divided into two groups" is already wrong and lacking nuance, but this is at least a useful conceptual framework -- so long as it's acknowledged it's merely that. The map is not the territory, etc.)

The first group, the so-called gentry liberals, only care about what are termed "lifestyle" issues. They're big on the environment, gay marriage, the courts, and guns -- and when I say guns, I don't mean they're upset by crime. They tend to live in low-crime areas. Which is part of the reason they don't like guns -- they see no use for them, having no need for them themselves.

No, their objection to guns is cultural and aesthetic. Guns are ugly, guns are "real" in a sense they dislike (they prefer abstractions), guns represent the "hard" world they dislike so intensely, favoring the "soft" world that exists chiefly in their imaginations. They prefer that killer apps be made of electrons and logic, not atoms and engineering.

On the other side are economic/populist liberals, like union guys, lower income workers that want subsidies, people on welfare, etc.

This latter group is driven primarily by tangible wants, not ideas about what a Platonic "good society" would look like.

In a nutshell, though he doesn't use these words, Dreher is dividing the GOP into two groups: Gentry conservatives, chiefly concerned about matters of ideology and lifestyle, such as religious liberty and abortion, and less well-off voters, many of whose chief concern is simply to land a steady job and not live lives of what Dreher calls "desperation," though I'd say this is overstated. I'd say "insecurity," in the main, with many (though not most) actually in a state of "desperation" as he says.

Dreher makes it very plain that he does in fact consider religious liberty to be the tip-top issue, himself, and that he thinks people giving it short-shrift do not understand how important it is to them, as well. (I would agree and say religious liberty is the canary in the coalmine of all freedom of speech/freedom of belief/freedom to just be sorts of issues.)

But he also notes that many candidates continue making their pitch basically to the gentry conservatives, while Trump is making his appeal to tangible-needs/economic insecurity conservatives. (And, we should say: Non-conservatives, and liberals, too.)

Though I thought Ted Cruz did well last night, I did fault him, even at the time, for pitching himself so much to the religious liberty/religious values voter. He didn't talk enough about economics, I don't think, except for a promise to fight for his tax plan which, he says, will result in the abolition of the IRS. Well, no one really thinks he can pull that off, and even if he abolished the IRS as a technical matter, we would still have some successor organization of tax-collectors, largely if not entirely staffed by "former IRS" staffers.

Anyway, the point is that Cruz (and Rubio, of course) continued to push for these ideological/abstract things. They didn't talk enough about the tangibles. Rubio did some talk on that, chiefly in the I Feel Your Pain no-specific-plan-but-I-empathize vein.

I think Cruz's people should read Dreher and take this to heart. The reason Trump pulls 35-40% of the GOP is because 35-40% of the GOP feels so left behind and so threatened that they don't really feel like they have the luxury of worrying about what seems to them to be airy, second-order concerns.

They're worried about having a roof over their head.

I get why Cruz makes such a hard pitch for the evangelicals -- because this is his natural base of power, and yet he's actually losing it to Trump -- but I don't think the evangelicals are supporting Trump because of any evangelical concern. I think they're supporting Trump because he's telling them "I'll build a wall and keep out foreign labor and tax the hell out of foreign goods; my wall will protect you."

I'm not saying Cruz should follow Trump down the path of tradewar populism; I am saying that if he wants to attract this big share of the vote, he should start talking up economics, and not just in terms of a tax plan most people consider unlikely to find any purchase.

Part of the reason Trump is winning -- assuming this gentry/non-gentry division has any sort of reality to it at all -- is that Trump is appealing to the non-gentry-conservatives well-nigh alone (Kasich is playing in these waters a bit, too, but weakly), while everyone else, including Cruz, who people usually lump together with Trump as an outsider or anti-establishment populist candidate, is trying to divide up the votes of gentry conservatives.

Yes, gentry conservatives need to be appealed to, but you can't beat Trump while leaving this huge bloc of non-gentry-conservatives almost entirely conceded to him.*

I renew my suggestion that non-Trump candidates, Cruz in particular (my horse in this race), look anew at the the speeches of Reagan and note how he relentlessly linked his policy prescriptions to tangible gains, such as extra money in your pocket.

(DO NOT COMMENT ON THAT POST, no matter how brilliant you think it is. The banning software reads comments on old posts as spam and instantly bans anyone attempting to comment on dated posts. If you want to say something nice about that old post, say it here, in this fresh post.)

* Trump wins here for the same reason Fox wins. The % of conservatives is only 35% or so of the country, but Fox is the only news channel playing to this demographic. The rest of the networks are trying to divide up the liberal demographic.

You just can't concede a big fat bloc of 35% of the GOP (or GOP-leaning voters) to one dude in a race that's split multiple ways. This big bloc needs to be contended for, if anyone else is to have a chance.

Maybe anyone who prefers Cruz or Rubio should start rooting very hard for Kasich, because Kaich is similarly playing for economic progressives (though with a different issue profile).

Posted by: Ace at 04:41 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)

1 st!

Posted by: johnd01 at February 18, 2016 04:43 PM (ukNFU)

2 I have summoned The Others.

Posted by: johnd01 at February 18, 2016 04:43 PM (ukNFU)

3 I'm going to tip toe backwards out of this thread.

Posted by: Cheri at February 18, 2016 04:44 PM (oiNtH)

4 Missed it by that ( ) much

Posted by: Skip at February 18, 2016 04:46 PM (l+OuH)

5
Good post.

Tho... the issue with liberals view on guns isnt the guns themselves.

Their REAL issue is with gunowners.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 18, 2016 04:46 PM (8XRCm)

6 >>>I'm going to tip toe backwards out of this thread.

why? nothing i've written, I hope!

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (dciA+)

7 Well, no - the WSJ/NBC poll was an agenda-driven one designed to gin up news stories. AKA shenanigans.

But that's OK. This is my 4th general election cycle here, 8th with midterms, and I know to never, ever take any polls whatsoever serious around these parts.

Its the youngins I worry bout
/stares into middle distance

Posted by: Bigby's Whatever Hands at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (3ZtZW)

8 Willow Rules: From last thread:


189 Posted by: L, Elle at February 18, 2016 04:41 PM (2x3L+)


It's trying, we have to watch it. Like a BBC nature documentary. The birthing, the eyes opening showing the pink pupils, the tiny fangs developing as mommy shows it how to pull out grubs and eat them for the delight of classmates.

And then it develops its glossy coat, turning to fart jokes, and "kick-me" signs, before it attempts metamorphosis to the adult stage and political humor. Most don't last as older predators strike while it is vulnerable.

Let's watch. maybe we can get Randall to do the voice-over.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 18, 2016 04:45 PM (hLRSq)

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (hLRSq)

9 I think you should send your post to the Cruz camp, Ace. I'm not sure whether Cruz reads the HQ and there are some good ideas here about how to focus his campaign.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (w4NZ8)

10 Limbaugh pointed out Trump is already trying to get the LIV Demomocrats to support him and his policies.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (v0YLX)

11 Was at sidebar about Republicans caving on Supreme Court nomination. We will see but it will be the end as leftists will take every special case to the court for turnovers.

Posted by: Skip at February 18, 2016 04:48 PM (l+OuH)

12 I think Cruz ought to frame his tax plan as a way to keep the government's nose out of everyone's bank account. The idea that the IRS has to know every financial transaction you perform, and can close your accounts without even a warrant, ought to scare the pants off of everyone.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 18, 2016 04:48 PM (Qvgg/)

13 I'm going to tip toe backwards out of this thread.
why? nothing i've written, I hope!
Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (dciA+)

It's probably us.

Posted by: Millions of Trumptards, undulating racistly at February 18, 2016 04:48 PM (xuouz)

14 Limbaugh pointed out Trump is already trying to get the LIV Demomocrats to support him and his policies.
Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (v0YLX)

----

Hence Trumps "Bush Lied" theatrics.

I hate it. But I understand why he did it.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 18, 2016 04:49 PM (8XRCm)

15 We're fucked.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 04:49 PM (TJCSB)

16 ARE YOU READY TO ROCK!?

Posted by: Blackie Lawless at February 18, 2016 04:49 PM (91LL3)

17 >>I think you should send your post to the Cruz camp, Ace. I'm not sure whether Cruz reads the HQ and there are some good ideas here about how to focus his campaign.

eh. look, if they're doing their jobs, they're keeping their eyes open for ideas percolating out in the base, and blogs are written records of such.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:50 PM (dciA+)

18 A conservative talking head said on the 'D' side it is a card-carrying socialist vs. an unindicted felon, on the 'R' side it is an evangelist vs. a nationalist (discounting Rubio).

Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 18, 2016 04:50 PM (T78UI)

19 >>why? nothing i've written, I hope!


Maybe it's time for another shower?

Posted by: garrett at February 18, 2016 04:50 PM (91LL3)

20 I think it is simpler - the GOPe has completely thrown away America's trust.

Cruz isn't GOPe, but to your average LIV he is much closer to the GOPe then Trump is.

If Cruz wants to undercut Trump, come out and call for a moratorium on not just immigration but also H1Bs as well.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 04:50 PM (5LOno)

21 Tho... the issue with liberals view on guns isnt the guns themselves.
Their REAL issue is with gunowners.
Posted by: fixerupper at February 18, 2016 04:46 PM (8XRCm)

The endless drumbeat of identity politics, all in support of a soft socialism which creeps ever so slowly over around and through our defenses.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 18, 2016 04:51 PM (xuouz)

22 If Cheri is like I am, Ace, she may be tiptoeing out-not because of what you said, but because of the potential Trump-Cruz flame wars, which- IMO- get to be non productive and enervating

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 18, 2016 04:51 PM (w4NZ8)

23 A tie for Cruz is a vote for The Goldman Sachs

Posted by: Terry at February 18, 2016 04:51 PM (079lL)

24 If Cruz wants to undercut Trump, come out and call for a moratorium on not just immigration but also H1Bs as well.



Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 04:50 PM (5LOno)

Posted by: Me-Too Cruz at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (T78UI)

25 Their REAL issue is with gunowners.
***
To rephrase a famous saying, you can take a lot more from a man with just a smile, then you can from a man with a smile and a gun.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (5LOno)

26 Rubio had a great response about how school choice was vital for minorities.

His line was "the only people who don't have school choice now are poor people. rich people have private school as a choice, and the middle class can move."

He also explained how people had to step up themselves and not expect government to work.

Rubio is not that bad, except on immigration. If that's your main focus, its understandable you don't like him, but he's acceptable to me if Cruz can't win.

(I have a feeling Cruz gives people the creeps.)

Posted by: Harun at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (UBBWX)

27 Yeah dividing the GOP into 2 groups is overly simplistic. I've argued for a while it's at least 3:

1) FiCons
2) SoCons
3) Big Business supporters (the GOPe).

We're witnessing an all out war between these segments now.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (tM4uk)

28 >>>
If Cruz wants to undercut Trump, come out and call for a moratorium on not just immigration but also H1Bs as well.

well, 1, trump hasn't called for a moratorium on immigration.

I agree that Cruz could totally outfox Trump on that by doing so, but I don't want anyone to think Trump has called for that. He has not.

Further, 2, Cruz has called for a moratorium on H1-Bs. He did that months ago. He wants a moratorium until the economy begins adding jobs at a rate to require adding new workers.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (dciA+)

29 Let me see if I get this. Kasich is polling 4th with 11% I can understand the top 3, but that is just Feminazi crazy.

Posted by: Picric at February 18, 2016 04:53 PM (QnQ+g)

30 Pish-Posh! Good day, sir.

I said "Good Day!"

Posted by: The Gentry at February 18, 2016 04:53 PM (ZsN9X)

31 It was just a spot of mayonnaise, I swear!

Posted by: Bill and his seal at February 18, 2016 04:53 PM (CqLnu)

32 Trump is also making a different kind of economic security pitch than the GOP playbook uses. The GOP has used Tax Cuts as their economic solution for years. They cannot conceive that anyone would want anything else. But low skilled blue and pink collar workers have been hammered for a long time by the Obama economy and illegal immigration. And now skilled blue collar and white collar workers are feeling the pinch. Trump is talking directly to them in language and issues that neither party has truly seen since - oh, perhaps the time of Father Coughlin and Huey Long back in the 1930's.

Neither party knows how to deal with it; heck, neither party has been able to identify the appeal of Trump in order to properly counter him. Well they better figure it out soon because if Trump is knocked out of the race and thinks get worse then you will see something worse than Donald Trump arising.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 18, 2016 04:53 PM (hLRSq)

33

Cruz has called for a moratorium on H1-Bs.

He needs to, pardon the phrase, trumpet this from the rooftops.

Posted by: imp at February 18, 2016 04:54 PM (XIXZz)

34 Hasn't Trump called for deporting all illegals and then letting them back in?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 04:54 PM (TJCSB)

35 And speaking of H1Bs, some of my friends in the tech industry have pointed out to me that the majority of new hires at their companies aren't American citizens...

There is a winning campaign theme here that leverages the hell out of the Left's 1% vs 99% if anyone on the so-called right wants to use it.

And let's be clear, the people abusing H1Bs aren't going to vote for a Republican anyway no matter what...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 04:54 PM (5LOno)

36 why? nothing i've written, I hope!
Posted by: ace

No not at all I just don't want to engage in the Trump vs Cruz arguments that sometimes these threads devolve into. I'm not talking about honest disagreements - just when disagreements turn a little nasty.

Posted by: Cheri at February 18, 2016 04:54 PM (oiNtH)

37 re last thread: Turkey wants an to drag NATO into an Article 4 hearing.

Posted by: 13times at February 18, 2016 04:54 PM (WHVu+)

38 27
Yeah dividing the GOP into 2 groups is overly simplistic. I've argued for a while it's at least 3:



1) FiCons

2) SoCons

3) Big Business supporters (the GOPe).



We're witnessing an all out war between these segments now.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (tM4uk)

I'd add in another category...
Nationalists (or what I call Patriots) and Anti Nationalist (those who do not think of citizenship in the traditional way).

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 04:54 PM (f7rv6)

39 >>>

Cruz has called for a moratorium on H1-Bs.

He needs to, pardon the phrase, trumpet this from the rooftops.

...

agreed.

He didn't mention it last night.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:55 PM (dciA+)

40 I don't think the FiCons or SoCons are much of a thing this election (whatever Cruz is saying). More of a thing are American national identitarians.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 18, 2016 04:55 PM (N9GsT)

41 If Cruz is worried about Evangelical Support, he should realize that Evangedlicals are not single issue voters.

It is "Great, you are one of us, now what else do you want to do? Will you make me safer, wealthier, happier, or healthier?"

He needs to sell roll back the regulations, scrap the IRS and the other 5 departments he wants to. Resurrect the US Military, Repeal Obamacare, restore the Rule of Law.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 04:55 PM (v0YLX)

42 Interesting take on matters. While I prefer Cruz, I'm not sure he has the history of 'getting the job done' that a son of a Scottish woman like Trump would demand, and achieve.

I tend to see a flourishing economy as something that republican ideas create, then democrats waste. We've had so many years of democrat waste that there really is no choice but to bring a hardnosed sob into office and institute the policies that will once again create a flourishing economy.

This is one election when even the lowest rung need to understand their days of being on the receiving end are numbered.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 04:55 PM (fbovC)

43 Limbaugh pointed out Trump is already trying to get the LIV Demomocrats to support him and his policies.
Posted by: rd

Yeah; he's acting like the leader. he's looking forward to the general election.

Am I happy about this? no.

Do i hate our party, and its latest trip toward surrender (SCOTUS hearings) yupper.

And in ways, both Cruz and Rubio are part of that disgusting mess.

All of which is fueling trump.

Posted by: Blue Hen at February 18, 2016 04:55 PM (326rv)

44 >>>No not at all I just don't want to engage in the Trump vs Cruz arguments that sometimes these threads devolve into. I'm not talking about honest disagreements - just when disagreements turn a little nasty.

gotcha, thank you for saying so. I do worry that i've said something untoward so if i have, i like to know (so I can correct it).

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:56 PM (dciA+)

45
The first group, the so-called gentry liberals, only care about what are termed "lifestyle" issues. They're big on the environment, gay marriage, the courts, and guns -- and when I say guns, I don't mean they're upset by crime. They tend to live in low-crime areas. Which is part of the reason they don't like guns -- they see no use for them, having no need for them themselves.

No, their objection to guns is cultural and aesthetic. Guns are ugly, guns are "real" in a sense they dislike (they prefer abstractions), guns represent the "hard" world they dislike so intensely, favoring the "soft" world that exists chiefly in their imaginations.








Yes, to a degree. Yet one of the most important aspects is the same dark underbelly that lurks behind a lot of Democrat Party policy.

Keeping Black America under their thumb.

Few things in this world scare Democrat Party types more than armed Blacks. There's a reason they talk about "guns on the streets" rather than using a word like "neighborhoods". It's that racial dog whistle that curiously, only Democrat Party types seem to be able to hear.

I'd refer you to zombie's excellent examination of the hidden motivation of the left.

http://tinyurl.com/j6c3t88

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 18, 2016 04:56 PM (S7qKa)

46 OT from last thread:

"Ed Schultz Shuts Down SuperPAC After Receiving Only $25 in Donations"

That's awesome. But who was the idiot that gave him $25?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 18, 2016 04:56 PM (LA7Cm)

47 #32 *things get worse* not thinks

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Adopt a Hot Air Refugee, get free pack of Argue-Mints at the Outrage Outlet! at February 18, 2016 04:56 PM (hLRSq)

48 Dead on. But the gentry in their bubble can't even conceive of anyone else even being real. They're just numbers and the occasional flavor piece in the New York Times.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 04:56 PM (9krrF)

49 My in-laws are blue-collar, nominally Catholic, politically more towards the right. Last time I talked to them, they liked Trump, because he hasn't been a full-time politician. They don't thosd currently in power. Can't imagine why.

Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at February 18, 2016 04:57 PM (FQKBL)

50 But yes, liberalism is at its core an aesthetic ideology, and this is the attraction for the tangibly-oriented liberal base, who yearn for the elegance and style of the purely academic liberal trust-funded elite. And in actuality, due to advances in quality of living, even someone on a social worker's salary can live like no king ever did, as has been noted.

What's so interesting to me is that as a result, you have this yuppie aesthetic among young liberals: they substitute the "desperation" of minorities for what is a somewhat unfashionable limousine liberalism - unfashionable among young millenial hipsters, that is. Anna Wintour is still the height of fashion, naturally. The point being, while their ids recognize their lower class blue-collar status and yearn for the elitist lifestyle of the gentry liberal, their egos consider their selves to be priviliged by their whiteness and craves a cultivated bohemian identity.

Their shit's all fucked up, is what I'm trying to say, and they're confused and can embrace conflicting ideologies based on which identity they happen to be inhabiting at the given time. Tatted up doctor's daughters playing with-it ebonics cultural virtue-signalling games while working for an urban outreach non-profit in the Bronx.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 18, 2016 04:57 PM (xuouz)

51 Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (dciA+)

Cruz would also need to come up with a solution for Manufacturing jobs going to other countries... and talk about the Trade Deficit (north of $1/2 Trillion per year).

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 04:57 PM (f7rv6)

52 and less well-off voters, many of whose chief concern is simply to land a steady job and not live lives of what Dreher calls "desperation," though I'd say this is overstated. I'd say "insecurity," in the main, with many (though not most) actually in a state of "desperation" as he says.

===

Yeah, the description is very off. I only know my slice, as it were, and constantly have to recall there is a much bigger pool that I'm probably not so much the middle in. But, for all that we hear Trump voters are poor, uneducated, whatever, the exit polls betray that every time.

I'm not so sure Insecurity cuts it either, BTW.

Posted by: Bigby's Whatever Hands at February 18, 2016 04:57 PM (3ZtZW)

53 What Trump policies will "create a flourishing economy"?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (TJCSB)

54 "Ed Schultz Shuts Down SuperPAC After Receiving Only $25 in Donations"



That's awesome. But who was the idiot that gave him $25?

--

I would guess that was seed money he put in himself.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (Qvgg/)

55 Rush had a caller today who was a Trump fan because she was getting crushed by Obamacare. Much bigger premiums, much bigger deductibles.

An example of Aces point, she's voting for Trump no matter what because of something he said early in the race about Obamacare. (Although, I thought Cruz was the only candidate talking about repealing every word).

This law is costing her a lot of money and she's sick of it.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (U+nHb)

56 What must be remembered and perhaps Ace addressed it and I didn't catch it is that many of the gentry conservatives have lost their jobs during the Fredo era and have been pushed over to the other group. It's hard to think abstractly when one is worried about being hungry and cold.

If there's any possible way that Trump can turn the economy around, the abstract will once again become the main focus, thus, perhaps, limiting Trump to only one term.

Posted by: Soona at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (Fmupd)

57 And speaking of H1Bs, some of my friends in the tech industry have pointed out to me that the majority of new hires at their companies aren't American citizens...

There is a winning campaign theme here that leverages the hell out of the Left's 1% vs 99% if anyone on the so-called right wants to use it.

And let's be clear, the people abusing H1Bs aren't going to vote for a Republican anyway no matter what...
Posted by: 18-1 a

If they wanted to win, campaign on clamping down on the visas and reform of the corporate tax rate (carrot and stick).

between that and the threatened death of the employer mandate, the lure toward the visas is undermined.

Posted by: Blue Hen at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (326rv)

58 Looks like Trump will walk away with SC easily. Also, on the Dem side Scankles will win in a walk-away provided she gets the black vote to turn out. But I don't see the black vote having a heavy turnout since Obama is not running.

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (t2KH5)

59 Further, 2, Cruz has called for a moratorium on H1-Bs. He did that months ago. He wants a moratorium until the economy begins adding jobs at a rate to require adding new workers.
***
I follow politics fairly closely, and I didn't know that.

It seems that Cruz should be doing a better job announcing that fact...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (5LOno)

60 Another thing that Trump is doing on the economic front is saying to black Americans that, hey, he knows they will always have a sentimental soft spot for Historic First, but the hard truth behind the soft spot is that the last seven years have been an economic Armageddon for blacks. Obama's policies failed them, no matter how highly they may think of Obama the man.

You don't necessarily have to convince large numbers of voters to come over from the other party to help you win a general election. All you have to do is demoralize them and shake their faith in their own party so that appreciable number of them fail to show up on Election Day.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 18, 2016 04:59 PM (noWW6)

61 Limbaugh pointed out Trump is already trying to get the LIV Demomocrats to support him and his policies.

Trump's real adversary is Sanders. From a certain standpoint, they're vying for the same pool of candidates. (It's pretty thoroughly established by now Shrillery's appeal to that demographic is...limited.)

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 04:59 PM (9krrF)

62 Something Nice!

Posted by: DaveA at February 18, 2016 05:00 PM (DL2i+)

63 Huckabee and Santorum were great Evangelicals
They never went very far, because even Evangelicals need good policies to support.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:00 PM (v0YLX)

64 'Bout time we got a Trump post around here.

Posted by: Blano at February 18, 2016 05:00 PM (sdPF/)

65 What is needed is a return to a participatory market economy, where any middle or lower class person can start and run a successful business that makes them enough money to lead a comfortable life, without having to burn the candle at both ends til they hit a point where they can sell out to an ever-consolidating group of global holding companies.

The political establishment is bought and paid for and must be removed. This will result in chaos. It's ok. We need it, in fact, for this generation to slim down and develop some calluses. They will rise to the challenge, as Americans do.

I'm more afraid of seeing us continue to lie to ourselves than I am of Donald Trump.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 18, 2016 05:01 PM (xuouz)

66 Sigh

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:01 PM (mw8Dm)

67 If there's any possible way that Trump can turn the economy around, the abstract will once again become the main focus, thus, perhaps, limiting Trump to only one term.
Posted by: Soona at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (Fmupd)


Successful president Trump turning around the economy will get booted in the next election ... ?

Doesn't sound right to me.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:01 PM (uURQL)

68 Pitchers ad Catchers

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:01 PM (mw8Dm)

69

Anyway, the point is that Cruz (and Rubio, of course) continued to push
for these ideological/abstract things. They didn't talk enough about the
tangibles. Rubio did some talk on that, chiefly in the I Feel Your Pain
no-specific-plan-but-I-empathize vein.

I think Cruz's people should read Dreher and take this to heart. The
reason Trump pulls 35-40% of the GOP is because 35-40% of the GOP feels
so left behind and so threatened that they don't really feel like they
have the luxury of worrying about what seems to them to be airy,
second-order concerns.

They're worried about having a roof over their head.





Bam!


Outstanding, ace.

Bravo.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:02 PM (lLKKQ)

70 'Bout time we got a Trump post around here.

===

Fkn A I was breakin out in hives

Posted by: Bigby's Whatever Hands at February 18, 2016 05:02 PM (3ZtZW)

71 11 Was at sidebar about Republicans caving on Supreme Court nomination. We will see but it will be the end as leftists will take every special case to the court for turnovers.
Posted by: Skip at February 18, 2016 04:48 PM (l+OuH)


Yeah, I get why everybody online expects it. But it would be just such an obvious disaster, politically, power-wise, everything, that until it happens, I won't believe they are actually stupid enough to do it.

Posted by: AD at February 18, 2016 05:02 PM (QWY55)

72 "Cruz has called for a moratorium on H1-Bs."

After first calling for hugely increasing their number.

Just as Cruz first talked up, and voted for, Obamatrade. Then when his polls downticked hard immediately upon passage, Cruz panicked and started trying to verbally walk it back within 48 hours of the vote itself.

It would be awfully nice if there were one solidly consistent conservative in the primary fight. Just one. It would make everything much simpler. Instead we have, well, zero.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 18, 2016 05:02 PM (noWW6)

73 OK gotta go drive n stuff

Posted by: Bigby's Whatever Hands at February 18, 2016 05:02 PM (3ZtZW)

74 Goodnight and godspeed horde.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 18, 2016 05:03 PM (xuouz)

75 Voted early for Cruz today. I have a hard time mustering any enthusiasm for Trump. In fact, I can't. For me, it's Cruz or we lose.

Posted by: jazzuscounty at February 18, 2016 05:03 PM (SOLqL)

76 I don't think that quite nails the distinction, and I'll tell you why.

Do you remember when Penn was on Larry King with Seth McFarlend and Seth was going on and on about how dumb hicks in hicksville vote against their own interests by voting Republican and Penn came back with "wait a second, you were just saying how magnainmous you were by supporting measures that raise your taxes. How come it's noble when you vote against your interests, but they're idiots for voting against their's?"

Ah, it was beautiful.

Anyway, I would say that hicks in hicksville care a lot more about these lofty concerns than the Chamber of Congress conservatives too.

Religious liberty isn't just religious liberty, it's literally your eternal salvation.

Chamber of Congress Charles doesn't care about that.

A truly winning message here combines the high talk about religious freedom with a strong message of jobs and security and an assurance that you won't send their sons (and apparently daughters now too) off to get killed in a war you have no intention of winning.

Charles will go along with this message so long as you also throw in few buzzwords about small business growth.

Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2016 05:05 PM (Dwl2T)

77 >>>After first calling for hugely increasing their number.

much like Trump called Romney's policy of deportation "inhumane" and "crazy" before suddenly finding Jesus on the idea of mass deportations (but with a "Huge Beautiful Door" to let "the good ones" back in).

Politicians change their minds, dude.


Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:05 PM (dciA+)

78 Trump is a very similar version of Huey Long. I hope he hasn't made any enemies of doctors.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 18, 2016 05:05 PM (1g+wZ)

79 I thought Cruz voted against Obamatrade? You have a source on this?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 05:05 PM (TJCSB)

80 I'm more afraid of seeing us continue to lie to ourselves than I am of Donald Trump.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 18, 2016 05:01 PM (xuouz)


Watched Karl Rove on Fox earlier... he was HORRIFIED that Candidates were calling each other Liar... it was so mean... and dirty... to call someone a liar when you think they are telling lies...
I personally find it refreshing... take the dang gloves off and talk like normal folks do... quit hiding behind a false civility.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 05:05 PM (f7rv6)

81
Yeah dividing the GOP into 2 groups is overly simplistic. I've argued for a while it's at least 3:

1) FiCons
2) SoCons
3) Big Business supporters (the GOPe).

We're witnessing an all out war between these segments now.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at February 18, 2016 04:52 PM (tM4uk)







There's also the Security Cons, a mix of domestic law-and-order types and a "peace through strength" foreign policy. They have declined in influence lately, largely because of association with neo-conservative thought, which has some overlap but is rather more aggressive on the foreign front with the whole "McDonalds Doctrine" type thing.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 18, 2016 05:06 PM (S7qKa)

82 Successful president Trump turning around the economy will get booted in the next election ... ?

Doesn't sound right to me.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:01 PM (uURQL)


-------------------


Just thinking out loud on Ace's post.

Posted by: Soona at February 18, 2016 05:06 PM (Fmupd)

83 Excellent analysis, Ace. In my opinion this is your strong point: examining topics objectively and fairly and coming to the point. I enjoy your humor stuff a lot, but this is your best kind of work in my opinion.

I agree that Cruz needs to embrace the Reagan approach of selling his ideas on a level that connects to people where they live. Its not easy to do, but its something he should have been working on for a year or two back.

His ideas and love of the constitution, wedded to a "this means jobs, this means protection, this means you have freedom" would be a big winner.

Especially powerful for him would be a pitch that emphasizes the pissant (forgive my language but there's no better term in the English language to describe it) regulations and nanny state trash that has been heaped on people. Run on freeing people from that would be a winner, I think. Depict the democrats as the party of restriction, control, "no" and limitation.

Its an easy sell, given all the stupid crap we've had put on us lately, especially in middle America where the EPA has been taking a nearly constant crap on the heads of farmers.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:06 PM (39g3+)

84 Watched Karl Rove on Fox earlier... he was HORRIFIED that Candidates were calling each other Liar... it was so mean... and dirty... to call someone a liar when you think they are telling lies...

Changing the focus in political discourse to lies and TRUTH would be rather horrifying to a narrative-pushing political types, I imagine.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:06 PM (uURQL)

85 What Trump policies will "create a flourishing economy"?Posted by: Dr Spank


If you don't understand the economics of trillions of dollars of untaxed money transfers between this country and central and south america I can't help you out. Or trillions spent on welfare transfers to people with no business being in this country, I can't help you out. Or an education system unable to cope with a hundred plus languages being spoken in a school and the children of americans suffering as a result, I can't help you out.

I could recite more, but I really don't think I can help you out.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 05:07 PM (fbovC)

86 there is no doubt that trump has moved the overton window such that one can now at least begin *proposing* limiting immigration.

Trump did that. No one else did.

However, Trump is not a very good salesman for his policy. That's why he has to reverse himself so frequently and propose a Big Beautiful Golden Door to let illegals back in.

No one is talking about limiting *legal* immigration, yet, except for Tucker Carlson, who's trying to inject this as a live issue into the national discussion. But no one is following his lead, including Trump, at the presidential candidate level.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:07 PM (dciA+)

87 Well, no - the WSJ/NBC poll was an agenda-driven one designed to gin up news stories. AKA shenanigans.



But that's OK. This is my 4th general election cycle here, 8th with
midterms, and I know to never, ever take any polls whatsoever serious
around these parts.



Its the youngins I worry bout

/stares into middle distance

Posted by: Bigby's Whatever Hands at February 18, 2016 04:47 PM (3ZtZW)

No need to assume shenanigans or agenda driving when there are legit explanations (one of which might be actual movement of opinion in the people that the WSJ pollsters happened to reach). Now if they had said Bush or Rubio were ahead...

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:07 PM (NPofj)

88
58 Looks like Trump will walk away with SC easily. Also, on the Dem side Scankles will win in a walk-away provided she gets the black vote to turn out. But I don't see the black vote having a heavy turnout since Obama is not running.
Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 18, 2016 04:58 PM (t2KH5)


The Dems in SC don't vote for another week, correct? In the meantime, they hold a caucus in NV this weekend.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot, 'Who Decides?' at February 18, 2016 05:07 PM (BK3ZS)

89 `
And let's be clear, the people abusing H1Bs aren't going to vote for a Republican anyway no matter what...

Posted by: 18-1


Actually, I can tell you that this is somewhat counterintuitive, but exactly wrong.
The individuals being prosecuted in these fraud rings are very frequently huge GOP donors and active in local politics.

Make of that what you will.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:07 PM (lLKKQ)

90 >>3 Excellent analysis, Ace. In my opinion this is your strong point: examining topics objectively and fairly and coming to the point. I enjoy your humor stuff a lot, but this is your best kind of work in my opinion.

thanks dude but here it is mostly derived from Dreher's insight.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:07 PM (dciA+)

91 I think it's a decent analysis. I also think many right-leaning people know the other candidates probably aren't going to be able to achieve much except a Supreme Court pick.

But the whole "religious liberty" part though is lost on me. I think the Left definitely pushes militant secularism, but I really don't live in fear that I'm not going to get to worship the way I want or attend Church.

I don't think that really animates many voters.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:08 PM (74hKk)

92 Posted by: torquewrench at February 18, 2016 05:02 PM (noWW6)

You can read his explanation and chose to believe it or not but Cruz is the least person to have polls determine his positions.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 18, 2016 05:08 PM (1g+wZ)

93 If Trump wants to turn the economy around all he has to do is repeal every Regulation and law that Obama has pushed through. But Republicans almost never do that

Posted by: Vic-we have no party at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (t2KH5)

94 I'm not sure whether I'm happy that Dreher agrees with us or pissed to no limit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (AA6QE)

95 It would be awfully nice if there were one solidly consistent conservative in the primary fight. Just one. It would make everything much simpler. Instead we have, well, zero.

We want Superman.
We'll settle for Batman. (Some may reverse the two.)
We'll get Godzilla.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (9krrF)

96 to note that new polls suggest that yesterday's WSJ/NBC most-likely-an-outlier poll is in fact most likely an outlier.

I don't think it was as much an outlier as an out and out liar.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (zc3Db)

97 Yep. There have been multiple attempts to communicate the Trump appeal to those who don't find him appealing.

The general response always seems to be "yes, but did you hear what he said about X?"

X being whatever IMPORTANT issue the arguer seems to think we're all supposed to be THAT concerned about.

And the only thing you can say in return is, "no, that's not what this is about."

Oh well, we'll keep arguing, I guess. At some point though, depending on what happens over the next couple weeks, people are going to have to figure out what they're going to do about the Trump nomination. Or maybe they won't. But probably, they will.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (TOk1P)

98 Cruz's big plan for the southern states was built around the evangelical vote. Sadly, he is going too religious and starting to look a little Glenn Beck to me, which is not a good thing. Wish he would go back to talking about his platforms and his record.

Also, the negativity is not good for him. Wish he'd appear more positive. He is playing right into the idea that he 'can't work with Congress' and 'everyone hates him' theme that has been going around.

Oh, well. I've got back up voting plans. I do not fear Trump at all. Could be perfectly satisfied with seeing him in the general. The looks on the faces of the RNC at the convention would be worth it.

Posted by: K-E at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (ur7Ib)

99 Posted by: mega machines

If you think solving our immigration problem will fix our economy you're beyond help.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 05:10 PM (TJCSB)

100 95 It would be awfully nice if there were one solidly consistent conservative in the primary fight. Just one. It would make everything much simpler. Instead we have, well, zero.

yup, I'm not crazy about any of them...

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:11 PM (/dSsq)

101 Trump did that. No one else did.

--------

He did, and he deserves credit. And I do enjoy the Make America Great Again slogan. And even the talk about winning. (Does Charlie Sheen get royalties?)

But I just have a hard time seeing Trump change anything in Washington, and I actually see him make things a lot worse.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:11 PM (gmeXX)

102 I agree with a lot of this, but part of the problem for anybody explaining Trump's support is that, like a good actor or athlete, a good politician makes it look easy.

Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

So, if you watch him in action, he makes what he's doing look easy. It's what he's been doing since worked as a kid for his father. However, sales is a skill. It's a skill he's f'king awesome at. Yeah, even if you want to knock his business record, you simply can't deny he's an awesome salesman--which a big part of being a good politician.

When everybody sees him, and sees him doing what looks like nothing, they feel they have to dissect his supporters to explain his appeal. The neglect of his supporters is part of his success. But another large part is simply that he excels at a fundamental age-old aspect of politics, which a lot of other candidates suck at now.

Posted by: AD at February 18, 2016 05:12 PM (QWY55)

103 So history is over.

Because you idiots listened to Cruz when he faked being a good person.

And now the nation turns to Trump.

So be it.

That is the fruit of supporting someone as dishonest as Ted Cruz.

Posted by: petunia at February 18, 2016 05:12 PM (VoCyE)

104 C'mon March 1!

Posted by: Count de Non Gentry at February 18, 2016 05:12 PM (JO9+V)

105 But I just have a hard time seeing Trump change anything in Washington, and I actually see him make things a lot worse.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:11 PM (gmeXX)


Things can't get any worse in Washington.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:13 PM (zc3Db)

106 Any Jewell sighting???

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at February 18, 2016 05:13 PM (iQIUe)

107 "Ed Schultz Shuts Down SuperPAC After Receiving Only $25 in Donations"

That's awesome. But who was the idiot that gave him $25?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill



His mom.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 18, 2016 05:13 PM (DfQBn)

108 "The Trump appeal "
an essay
by Mortimer

The GOP hates me.

The GOP hates Trump.

Trump hates the GOP.

Trump enrages the GOP.

Trump confounds the GOP.

Trump may well spell the end of the GOP.

This appeals to me.


The
End

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (lLKKQ)

109 No, their objection to guns is cultural and aesthetic. Guns are ugly, guns are "real" in a sense they dislike (they prefer abstractions), guns represent the "hard" world they dislike so intensely, favoring the "soft" world that exists chiefly in their imaginations. They prefer that killer apps be made of electrons and logic, not atoms and engineering.

---

I disagree.

Their objection to guns is not aesthetic. They are simply terrified that people of color with guns will exfiltrate from high-crime neighborhoods into their safe spaces.

But they can't say, "We are terrified of non-white gang members and thugs, and we want them disarmed" - that would be racist. So they pretend not to be racist by saying, "We need to get rid of guns."

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (eetvJ)

110 Oh, well. I've got back up voting plans. I do not fear Trump at all. Could be perfectly satisfied with seeing him in the general. The looks on the faces of the RNC at the convention would be worth it.
Posted by: K-E at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (ur7Ib)


My thoughts are the same.

I'm fine with either. Whoever wins the nomination earns my vote. (for what it's worth in a blue state)

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (uURQL)

111 They're all weasels. (Not like our stoat)

I really didn't care about the election until Scalia died. I don't believe Rubio's or Trump's judicial nominees would look much different than those of a Democrat.

Cruz has been through liberal legal academia. He despises them, they despise him. I hope his judicial appointments will be guided by feelings of personal revenge, as that will be exponentially better for me than anything Rubio, Trump, Sanders or Clinton will be guided by.

But, they're all weasels. (Not like our stoat)

Posted by: Oschisms at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (ZsN9X)

112 "I'm more afraid of seeing us continue to lie to ourselves than I am of Donald Trump.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR"

This !^^^^

Great post, ace !

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (Z8DIA)

113 Cruz's big plan for the southern states was built around the evangelical vote. Sadly, he is going too religious and starting to look a little Glenn Beck to me, which is not a good thing. Wish he would go back to talking about his platforms and his record.


------------

I definitely agree with this. It's way over the top, almost like Pat Robertson is running for President.

I'm sure some of this is a dog-whistle with "guess who's probably not a Christian?" for the primary but some of these quotes are going to haunt Cruz if he's the nominee.

I do think Trump will appeal to many voters in a General Election purely because nobody can paint him as a tool of the Religious Right.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (74hKk)

114 I smell a strange combination of herbal tea and cat urine.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (Qvgg/)

115 I would agree and say religious liberty is the canary in the coalmine of all freedom of speech/freedom of belief/freedom to just be sorts of issues.

Here's how it works. Religious freedom is freedom of conscience. Freedom of religion means you're free to think, believe, and hold dear what you wish and live based on those beliefs. Its not just about religion, its about what you believe about everything; politics, opinions, worldview, ideas.

Taking away the freedom to believe and live as you want means ultimately the government dictates what you think and how you live. Freedom of conscience was extremely critical and foundation to the founding fathers. It was one of the highest possible rights because of the repercussions across all of life and the future of a nation.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (39g3+)

116 Yup Trump has changed the dynamics, Grabbed tge attention of America, Change the conversation, Dominated the Landscape as far as the eye can see.

To fuckin bad he is bat shit crazy.

Sigh

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (mw8Dm)

117 Who is the Chief Diversity Officer at NRO or Salem Communications?

They don't have one. So the people who work there have NO IDEA WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO FEAR ON A DAILY BASIS!!

Security is not just about economics, it's about purging our culture of PC Nazis who threaten our every thought and deed.

Hot Air switched to Facebook comments and the largest complaint as regarding ANONYMITY. We live in fear of being outed!

But the rubes who GET PAID TO SPEAK RIGHT WING PLATITUDES HAVE NO SUCH VISCERAL AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

THAT is why they do not understand.

Posted by: Rick Tingles at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (jU/Xl)

118 people are going to have to figure out what they're going to do about the Trump nomination

----------------

The GOP has nominated bad candidates before, the country has endured bad presidents before ... things will either get better, stay the same, or get worse.

Eventually, you just have to deal with the reality you are in.

I have longed wished for a President that respected the Constitution - perhaps this will not be the year.

Finally, I have never understood why abolishing the IRS doesn't resonate better than it does. Who could possibly be against this?

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (gmeXX)

119 >>>
Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (dciA+)

120 Maybe Cruz could pull it off, but I don't think so. It's frankly too late for him and Rubio to co-op any of the Trump message. It'll just come off as cheap pandering.

And Cruz is not a populist.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (LXJ1e)

121 61
Trump's real adversary is Sanders. From a certain standpoint, they're vying for the same pool of candidates. (It's pretty thoroughly established by now Shrillery's appeal to that demographic is...limited.)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 04:59 PM

Could we see a real realignment of the political parties?

Hillary and the Dem establishment crooks align woth the Republican Establishment crony capitalists against the populist and Main Street Trump-Sanders coalition?

I doubt it, but something HAS to CHANGE!

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (v0YLX)

122 Also, the negativity is not good for him. Wish he'd appear more positive. I do not fear Trump at all. Could be perfectly satisfied with seeing him in the general Posted by: K-E at February 18, 2016 05:09 PM (ur7Ib)

Did you watch the last debate? I don't think negativity means what you think it means.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (UnJ7w)

123 Posted by: petunia at February 18, 2016 05:12 PM (VoCyE)


Trolly trolls gotta troll.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (TOk1P)

124 Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.

Sadly, I think you're right...

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (/dSsq)

125 Things can't get any worse in Washington.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:13 PM (zc3Db)


They can. The upside is that Trump is more likely to make things worse in a way that harms our enemies.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (uURQL)

126 Things can't get any worse in Washington.

---------------

Things can always be worse. Always.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:15 PM (gmeXX)

127 Trump may well spell the end of the GOP.

Yeah, when he loses in a 50-state rout

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:16 PM (lVU49)

128 I really didn't care about the election until Scalia died. I don't believe Rubio's or Trump's judicial nominees would look much different than those of a Democrat.

Cruz has been through liberal legal academia. He despises them, they despise him. I hope his judicial appointments will be guided by feelings of personal revenge, as that will be exponentially better for me than anything Rubio, Trump, Sanders or Clinton will be guided by.

But, they're all weasels. (Not like our stoat)
Posted by: Oschisms

_______________

Cruz was a big booster of John Roberts and was even good friends with him, so I really don't think anyone can make the case that Cruz really has any edge in that department.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:16 PM (74hKk)

129 Anyway, the point is that Cruz (and Rubio, of course) continued to push

for these ideological/abstract things. They didn't talk enough about the

tangibles. Rubio did some talk on that, chiefly in the I Feel Your Pain

no-specific-plan-but-I-empathize vein.


I think Cruz's people should read Dreher and take this to heart. The

reason Trump pulls 35-40% of the GOP is because 35-40% of the GOP feels
so left behind and so threatened that they don't really feel like they

have the luxury of worrying about what seems to them to be airy,

second-order concerns.


They're worried about having a roof over their head.




Trump pulling high numbers is people saying they are going to vote with their middle finger. It is not because Trump has plans that will actually make them better off.



Build a wall? OK and I am all in on that.. but if Trump is talking about touch back citizenship, that wall is not going to make much difference to the people harmed by illegal immigration.




Manufacturing is disappearing from the US? Why yes it is. But Trump's ideas to fix that are all about punishing companies and will do nothing to "fix" anything. In fact they will drive us deeper into depression. For a businessman, Trump seems to not have a clue about actual economics.


Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:17 PM (NPofj)

130 he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.

----------

to people who have votes, but cannot pay the bills

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:17 PM (gmeXX)

131
But the whole "religious liberty" part though is lost on me. I think the Left definitely pushes militant secularism, but I really don't live in fear that I'm not going to get to worship the way I want or attend Church.

I don't think that really animates many voters.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:08 PM (74hKk)









Yet this is a very real fear in much of the US. And for good reason. Socialism/communism has ALWAYS had religion as their primary bete noire. Hell, I'm not a churchgoer but the Left's hatred for religion, and their singleminded will to destroy it scares the crap out of me.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 18, 2016 05:17 PM (S7qKa)

132 We want Cruz.
We'll settle for Trump
We'll get Kasich

Posted by: L, Elle at February 18, 2016 05:17 PM (2x3L+)

133 Cruz was a big booster of John Roberts and was even good friends with
him, so I really don't think anyone can make the case that Cruz really
has any edge in that department.


So were lots of reliable people. That's on Roberts.

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:17 PM (LAe3v)

134 Yeah, when he loses in a 50-state rout
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:16 PM (lVU49)

You really sound as if you'd be more comfortable at a left wing site?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:18 PM (mw8Dm)

135 I disagree.

Their objection to guns is not aesthetic. They are simply terrified that people of color with guns will exfiltrate from high-crime neighborhoods into their safe spaces.

But they can't say, "We are terrified of non-white gang members and thugs, and we want them disarmed" - that would be racist. So they pretend not to be racist by saying, "We need to get rid of guns."

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (eetvJ)


Yep. And they follow the same reasoning with child services, school lockdowns and the rest of it. They know that the problems emanate from one small segment but they rush to knock all of society down to the lowest common denominator and attempt to portray themselves as "unbiased and color blind" when they are anything but. We see the same thing in granny and her 4 year old granddaughter being strip searched and fondled by the TSA while mohammed and his burka'ed wife(?) fly through unmolested.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:18 PM (zc3Db)

136 The GOP has nominated bad candidates before, the
country has endured bad presidents before ... things will either get
better, stay the same, or get worse.



Eventually, you just have to deal with the reality you are in.



I have longed wished for a President that respected the Constitution - perhaps this will not be the year.



Finally, I have never understood why abolishing the IRS doesn't
resonate better than it does. Who could possibly be against this?

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (gmeXX)


It's likely going to have longer effects on the Republican Party, and probably nothing any of us can fully predict right now.


Might kill it altogether, or fundamentally change it, or it turns a little bit here or there, and not as much as some of us expect. I do think this goes however, beyond "just another election/candidate/winner" if Trump is there in the end.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 18, 2016 05:18 PM (TOk1P)

137

I think Cruz's people should read Dreher and take this to heart. The
reason Trump pulls 35-40% of the GOP is because 35-40% of the GOP feels
so left behind and so threatened that they don't really feel like they
have the luxury of worrying about what seems to them to be airy,
second-order concerns.

They're worried about having a roof over their head.
--------
And yet, those people would be the ones most hurt by Trump's policies, especially on trade.


Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:18 PM (89I+i)

138 If you think solving our immigration problem will fix our economy you're beyond help.Posted by: Dr Spank

If you're too obtuse to recognize the problem then perhaps you need to stop spanking your monkey so much. Exporting trillions of dollars to other countries does nothing for ours.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (fbovC)

139 As a Reagan Democrat,formerly, I think Ace's analysis is spot on. I voted for him then, even though I was a card carrying union member, and a believer in the idea that the Democrat Party was for the working man, because he convinced me that he gave a shit about my interests. Republican candidates who don't come out hardcore on economics are doomed.

Posted by: kraken at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (sdxPm)

140 We want Cruz.

We'll settle for Trump

We'll get KasichMr Rubiato
Posted by: L, Elle


The GOPe does have a heart, you know

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (Qvgg/)

141 I honestly thought after Saturday Trump would have taken a hit... Doesn't seem so. Looks like it doesn't matter what He says or does his followers are gonna keep following...

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (/dSsq)

142 You really sound as if you'd be more comfortable at a left wing site?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:18 PM (mw8Dm)

Why? I'm not a liberal

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (lVU49)

143
Yeah, when he loses in a 50-state rout

Yeah , unlike Ted Cruz with all of his cross-over appeal?


Wishful thinking is a staple of the diet of the obsessed and rage-blinded.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (lLKKQ)

144 Finally, I have never understood why abolishing the IRS doesn't resonate better than it does. Who could possibly be against this?
Posted by: SH


because everybody knows it's election pandering. Might as well promise Root Beer in the drinking fountains.

I hate the IRS, but obviously some agency is going to be in charge of enforcing tax laws.

It's like saying we should abolish the DMV. Okay, but who handles license plate renewals, etc.?

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (74hKk)

145 Trump may well spell the end of the GOP.
--------------------
Yeah, when he loses in a 50-state rout
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:16 PM (lVU49)


So which Democratic politician is going to pull that off? Clinton, Biden, or Sanders?

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (uURQL)

146 In small world trivia news I actually bought a trike in Fishtown way back when.

Posted by: DaveA at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (DL2i+)

147 Why? I'm not a liberal
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (lVU49)


You often seem to predict the coming democratic rout?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:20 PM (mw8Dm)

148 Anyone else getting annoying autoplay video ads?

Posted by: House of Payne at February 18, 2016 05:20 PM (R17eW)

149 Finally, I have never understood why abolishing the IRS doesn't

resonate better than it does. Who could possibly be against this?



Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (gmeXX)


Because to a good 40+% of the population, the IRS is actually the Christmas In Springtime agency when they get their "free money from Uncle Sugar" (aka tax refund)

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:20 PM (lVU49)

150 Cruz was a big booster of John Roberts and was even good friends with him, so I really don't think anyone can make the case that Cruz really has any edge in that department.

-----------

Look, if you don't think there is a difference between Roberts and the liberal justices, then I don't know what to say. Yes he blew Obamacare. Yes you should be defined by the really big cases. But there is just a huge difference. That is simply a fact.

I trust Rubio on judges, because in general those who are pro-life appoint better judges. That is the importance of the pro-life message, it is a proxy as to how you will appoint judges.

It is why I would not trust Trump. As Ace said, his base of support really just doesn't care. They care about themselves.

Obviously appointing judges isn't everythign.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:20 PM (gmeXX)

151 However, Trump is not a very good salesman for his policy. That's why he has to reverse himself so frequently and propose a Big Beautiful Golden Door to let illegals back in.

No one is talking about limiting *legal* immigration, yet, except for Tucker Carlson, who's trying to inject this as a live issue into the national discussion. But no one is following his lead, including Trump, at the presidential candidate level.

Posted by: ace


He's a decent 'salesman' to a select group, that is, the bulk of the populace -

but doesn't strike you odd that that our Betters (tm) in the right commentariat denounce Trump as a populist but then are shreekingly angry when the actual populi shows up and makes a choice?

And the same lot that they hope $100 million of ad dollars is able to sway?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (AA6QE)

152 Still like Trump for the nom. Cruz is in a close 2nd for me. I have 12 days to make a choice for the Mar 1 Tx Primary.

Posted by: Count de Non Gentry at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (JO9+V)

153 OT - (weasel zippers) Mexico:
...the only incidents reported during the papal visit was the Pope "losing"
his gold crucifix, watch, and ring as he waded through the adoring
crowds, and the "Popemobile" parade vehicle being stripped while the
Pope and his entourage took a break for lunch (below). Vatican officials
reported that Mexican police later found the vehicle's radio,
transmission, and one wheel and tire, and were in the process of
negotiating a price for their return."

Si se puede! Ja ja ja ja! Free shit, maaaan!

Posted by: OK, Thanks, Bye at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (ucB75)

154 I honestly thought after Saturday Trump would have taken a hit... Doesn't seem so. Looks like it doesn't matter what He says or does his followers are gonna keep following...
Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (/dSsq)


After decades of GOPe, words have been devalued to the point where they don't really matter all that much.

Whatever you hate about Trump, you ought to be able to give him credit for attacking and pushing back PC.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (uURQL)

155 There needs to be more of a focus on the economics and less reliance on the religious issues to get votes. Economics impacts us all in a very direct way. Religious issues scare off too many people who otherwise might want to listen.

Posted by: Laugh it up, Fuzzball! at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (Es7YA)

156 Cruz really has any edge in that department.
Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:16 PM (74hKk)


Bullshit. Robert's obamacare support was out of left field. If you think for one second that Trump and Cruz would nominate the same kind of justice you are seriously in denial. Maybe you should look at Cruz's amazing record of litigation at the SCOTUS. I wouldn't insult you by saying Cruz is just a good real estate mogul as Trump is. Please don't try to bullshit the rest of us and say Trump is anywhere in Cruz's league when it comes to the law and understanding the Constitution. Good lord.


Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (UnJ7w)

157 What Trump policies will "create a flourishing economy

Ideally his immigration policies would help, but I don't buy he'd follow through at all. And his trade war policies would cause problems as well. So in the end... probably none.

But Ace is right, Trump is selling what nobody else is and they need to.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM (39g3+)

158 153 OT - (weasel zippers) Mexico:
...the only incidents reported during the papal visit was the Pope "losing"
his gold crucifix, watch, and ring as he waded through the adoring
crowds, and the "Popemobile" parade vehicle being stripped while the
Pope and his entourage took a break for lunch (below). Vatican officials
reported that Mexican police later found the vehicle's radio,
transmission, and one wheel and tire, and were in the process of
negotiating a price for their return."

Si se puede! Ja ja ja ja! Free shit, maaaan!

Now that there is poetic justice!

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM (/dSsq)

159 Cruz was a big booster of John Roberts and was even
good friends with him, so I really don't think anyone can make the case
that Cruz really has any edge in that department.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:16 PM (74hKk)


Yes the conservative Constitutional scholar has no edge over the guy who cannot articulate a conservative position without "his people".

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM (NPofj)

160 You often seem to predict the coming democratic rout?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:20 PM (mw8Dm)


That's just an emotional reaction to the idea of President Trump.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM (uURQL)

161
So which Democratic politician is going to pull that off? Clinton, Biden, or Sanders?

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (uURQL)

I think any of the three could beat Trump. He would lose ESPECIALLY to Sanders.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM (lVU49)

162 Ed Schultz Shuts Down SuperPAC After Receiving Only $25 in Donations

Yeah, I remember when Ed was the Lefty Who Was Gonna Take Down Limbaugh. He couldn't even keep a job on MSNBC.

Posted by: tu3031 at February 18, 2016 05:23 PM (YFFpo)

163
Whatever you hate about Trump, you ought to be able to give him credit for attacking and pushing back PC.

I never said I "hate " Trump... So far I've made no decision....

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:23 PM (/dSsq)

164 Because to a good 40+% of the population, the IRS is actually the Christmas In Springtime agency when they get their "free money from Uncle Sugar" (aka tax refund)
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:20 PM (lVU49)


Spot on sir.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:23 PM (UnJ7w)

165
I am an American. I hold to all the ideals that are currently derided and will NEVER abandon them.

I am a patriot who believes wholeheartedly in my country. We are, through the tenets and application of our founding the most exceptional country and people on the planet.

And I mean to keep it so.

THIS is what Trump speaks to--convincingly enough that it is easy to listen to.

Yes, I'll vote for the restoration and continuance of that country and it's ideals.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 18, 2016 05:23 PM (P/8aq)

166 >>Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

He's pretty good but I don't see him at the top. I think your conclusion explains it better, his competition is pretty weak.

Reagan, now he was an outstanding salesman. He wasn't selling himself so much as selling himself as a guy who could deliver prosperity and the return of The Shinning City on the Hill.

I saw Rubio repeat that line last night. It was a weak imitation of Reagan because he didn't really feel it the way Reagan did.

To me, that was the most evocative memory of Reagan's tenure. He wasn't selling me on any specific principle or even tactics, he was selling me on America regaining her greatness. And he did.

Go back and look at Reagan's work while he was at GE. There was a whole campaign that he did for them that was called something like Living Electric featuring the magic of electrical appliances around the house. But what he was really selling was how they made life better. And it worked really well. Some of the videos are still on youtube.

Reagan made me believe he would fight to make my life better. Simple concept that almost no other politician understands how to do.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 18, 2016 05:24 PM (/tuJf)

167 Finally, I have never understood why abolishing the IRS doesn't resonate better than it does. Who could possibly be against this?
Posted by: SH


because everybody knows it's election pandering. Might as well promise Root Beer in the drinking fountains.

-------------

Why is the IRS so sacrosanct?

Why cannot it not be eliminated?

The left pushed for national healthcare for years - they finally realized it.

Why can we not do the same?

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:24 PM (gmeXX)

168 Yet this is a very real fear in much of the US. And for good reason. Socialism/communism has ALWAYS had religion as their primary bete noire. Hell, I'm not a churchgoer but the Left's hatred for religion, and their singleminded will to destroy it scares the crap out of me.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur



I can agree that socialist countries populace often times turn their backs on the Church (for a variety of reasons) but these countries almost always have religious "freedom".

Even pretty far left countries like Venezuela allow people to worship as they want.

I get the argument, but I really don't live in fear of this.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:24 PM (74hKk)

169 Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.
Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (dciA+)


Be fair. These are his head-to-head poll numbers vs. Clinton:

RCP Average Clinton 45.8 Trump 43.2

Now, that's in the red. And goddamn has he been shooting himself in the foot. I'm stunned he's still leading after the last debate.

But that's still a hell of a lot closer than 15-20%. And for a guy with zero political experience is amazing.

Posted by: AD at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (QWY55)

170 There needs to be more of a focus on the economics and less reliance on the religious issues to get votes.

Materialism will not Make America Great Again.

America needs a spiritual revival. It needs to be embrace its identity and assert its borders. The Declaration of Independence wasn't about keeping money in one's pockets, though it's a related concept.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (uURQL)

171 By the way, I seem to recall a certain much-loathed pol in these parts who won election and re-election on the strength of "cares about people like me". In the face of tidal waves of evidence to the contrary.

If Trump had as helpful a press as Obama did, where do you think his numbers would be...?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (9krrF)

172 The thing about polls that most on the right and left seem to ignore or dismiss while it should be the #1 thing to look at is the polling sample. The WSJ/NBS poll was immediately worthless as they were polling only 400 people in a nationwide poll. Unless you are doing a minimum of 1000 people...if not much higher then you're going to keep ending up being 'shocked' when real voting results keep showing differently then poll results.

Posted by: Arcadehero at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (nwQ+G)

173 >>...but I really don't live in fear that I'm not going to get to worship the way I want or attend Church


I didn't until they started prosecuting Christians photographers, florists, balers, when Obama forced the HHS contraceptive mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor, and when the Houston mayor demanded pastors turn over written copies of their sermons (related to suspected anti-LGBT comments).

Religion *is* under attack, and we now have a government that feels comfortable micro-managing and/or threatening the way people express/practice it.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (NOIQH)

174 You can't spell Trump Steaks! without the !

Posted by: Yip at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (e7T6D)

175 . I wouldn't insult you by saying Cruz is just a
good real estate mogul as Trump is. Please don't try to bullshit the
rest of us and say Trump is anywhere in Cruz's league when it comes to
the law and understanding the Constitution. Good lord.







Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:21 PM (UnJ7w)

Problem is that we are not electing the Chief Arguer of the Country... we are electing the Chief Executive.

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (f7rv6)

176 I just don't buy that Trump has changed the convo on immigration, Rs spent all of Bush 43s term talking about building a wall, not Bush 41, Bush 43, just a few years ago. Now if he was talking about going after the members of the gentry conservatives (and limousine libs) who are hiring the illegals and abusing the H-1B visas yeah, I'd say he's changing the convo because that's where the problem is, not the lack of a wall.

Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (AfES1)

177 I think this explanation actually makes a lot of sense. However, I think the desperation is palpable, and on a larger scale than just "how does this impact me?" but in "OMG the world as we know it is disappearing"

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (8PbKi)

178
I disagree.

Their objection to guns is not aesthetic. They are simply terrified that people of color with guns will exfiltrate from high-crime neighborhoods into their safe spaces.

But they can't say, "We are terrified of non-white gang members and thugs, and we want them disarmed" - that would be racist. So they pretend not to be racist by saying, "We need to get rid of guns."
Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (


^^^^^^^^^
THIS

Democrats have hated the idea of guns in the hands of Blacks and minorities since Lincoln freed the slaves. The Black Codes were all about disenfranchising, humiliating, and keeping "them folks" powerless. All Black Codes used gun control to disarm those uppity .... And keep them in their places.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (v0YLX)

179 Materialism will not Make America Great Again.

America needs a spiritual revival. It needs to be embrace its identity and assert its borders. The Declaration of Independence wasn't about keeping money in one's pockets, though it's a related concept.


Word. Trump in the White House might give us breathing room, but unless we're also working to renew the culture it won't be much more than a sort of Indian summer.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (9krrF)

180 Here's how it works. Religious freedom is freedom of conscience. Freedom of religion means you're free to think, believe, and hold dear what you wish and live based on those beliefs. Its not just about religion, its about what you believe about everything; politics, opinions, worldview, ideas.

Taking away the freedom to believe and live as you want means ultimately the government dictates what you think and how you live. Freedom of conscience was extremely critical and foundation to the founding fathers. It was one of the highest possible rights because of the repercussions across all of life and the future of a nation.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (39g3+)

-----------------

That's a two edged sword. Governments are becoming increasingly anti-Christian and its filtering down to the school level. People feel their culture being attacked and going around saying we need more religious liberty means we're going to extinguish Christianity from the public commonweal.

Here's the appeal of Trump, he doesn't appeal to religious liberty (because in practice it means saying goodbye to societal Christianity). Both my wife and I got Christmas cards from him wishing us a Merry Christmas. And Trump goes around saying he's not for the PC crap of Happy Holidays but a Merry Christmas. I don't know if any other campaign did that for their supporters.

I know that's kinda rambling but I think that is some of the Trump appeal to evangelicals.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (LXJ1e)

181 I think any of the three could beat Trump. He would lose ESPECIALLY to Sanders.
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM (lVU49)


I will buy you a steak dinner if Trump gets the nom and loses in a 50 state route.

Details TBD on collection.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (uURQL)

182 Why is the IRS so sacrosanct?



Why cannot it not be eliminated?



The left pushed for national healthcare for years - they finally realized it.



Why can we not do the same?

---

Exactly right. I cannot think of anything I would like better than to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a sales tax. Frankly, I can't think of anything that would stimulate the economy more, outside of repealing socialized medicine.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (Qvgg/)

183 Posted by: mega machines

You're retarded, and not in a good way. And I say that will all due respect.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (TJCSB)

184 154
I honestly thought after Saturday Trump would have taken a hit...
Doesn't seem so. Looks like it doesn't matter what He says or does his
followers are gonna keep following...

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (/dSsq)


His followers, at least many of them, aren't interested in the facts. This is about them for once feeling empowered and respected. The more the GOPe squirms, the better they like it. If they had a brain in their empty heads, the first words out of their mouths would be "we've heard you loud and clear".


After decades of GOPe, words have been devalued to the point where they don't really matter all that much.



Whatever you hate about Trump, you ought to be able to give him credit for attacking and pushing back PC.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely a


agreed

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (LAe3v)

185 rout, not route. /facepalm

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:26 PM (uURQL)

186 Posted by: irongrampa at February 18, 2016 05:23 PM (P/8aq)

irongrampa, with all due respect - I believe Trump is a patriot too, but that isn't enough for me. Lots of people, lots of liberals even, call themselves patriots but then push ideas that stand in contrast to foundational American ideals. It isn't enough for someone to call themselves a patriot, they have to mean what they say. When Trump shows not even a slight concern for serious issues of liberty or constitutional governance, then I can't accept that.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (lVU49)

187 I honestly thought after Saturday Trump would have taken a hit...
Doesn't seem so. Looks like it doesn't matter what He says or does his
followers are gonna keep following...
---
Support for Trump is still basically a way to say "Fuck you in particular" to the wannabe aristocracy, in a way they cannot ignore, simply for the fact they don't want him and get the vapors at the way he talks. There is very little he could say or do that could change that.

Even taking multiple sides of policies doesn't hurt him, because the gope have trained us to believe we can't get any of what we want no matter how we vote.

That will hurt his reelection, when people don't get what he's promising now, but it doesn't matter today.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (ZbV+0)

188 Do Trump supporters realize that a max 35% support of the republican base in the primaries does not translate to a majority in the general election? I don't see a majority of the base eating another shit sandwich to support Trump like they had to do last time with Romney. At least I won't. If I decide to "Burn It Down" I will vote for Sanders. No use in pussy footing around, lol.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (UnJ7w)

189 he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.

This is my thought as well. Yes, its true that the Dems have an absolutely godawful battery of candidates nobody will joyfully vote for. They're terrible and weak and easy to beat.

But the GOP is facing a culture that sees the brand as evil. Its a big uphill battle and none of the candidates is demonstrating that they can comfortably reach out to a broad enough base to win in the general election.

Now, I know they change tactics while running in the general, and that will make a difference, but enough to get past the free crap army?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (39g3+)

190 If they had a brain in their empty heads, the first words out of their mouths would be "we've heard you loud and clear".

Their empty heads refers to the GOPe.

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (LAe3v)

191

Build a wall? OK and I am all in on that.. but if Trump is
talking about touch back citizenship, that wall is not going to make
much difference to the people harmed by illegal immigration.

Who are those people? Milton Friedman was absolutely correct: illegal immigration doesn't hurt anyone in the context of a relatively expansive welfare state.

People seem to be convinced that the economy is a zero-sum game and that the less there is for them (illegal immigrants) the more there would be for us.

Reality doesn't work like that though. Illegal immigrants don't push down wages, the same way the minimum salary doesn't pull them up. If, for the sake of the argument, all illegal immigrants were to disappear tomorrow, the economy would crater and it'd result on a net loss of jobs. The jobs done by illegals wouldn't suddenly start paying waves that would persuade discouraged American workers to get back in the workforce - they'd mostly disappear. And take with them a lot of (better paid) jobs hold by Americans.

The problem with legalizing the illegal immigrants has nothing to do with jobs, rather with welfare.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:28 PM (89I+i)

192 working from home today and listening to Rush/Hannity /Savage on internet radio,
why are are the commercials liberal Ad Council propaganda??????

Posted by: avi at February 18, 2016 05:28 PM (fijdj)

193 Trump's economic talk (other than border control) scares me. Mebbe I was lied to, but as I recall I was told that overly protectionist tendencies in 1929-1930 helped turn a recession into the great depression.

Plus his whole "single payer healthcare" I understand the fears of people who were told O-care would make things better and now find it is squeezing them dry, but Trump is not going to be able to fire all the people who created this Ocare hell, and they will make single payer here into some kind of commie hellhole where hospitals don't even have clean sheets and end up reusing disposable needles.

Posted by: PaleRider at February 18, 2016 05:28 PM (dkExz)

194 Problem is that we are not electing the Chief Arguer of the Country... we are electing the Chief Executive.
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (f7rv6)

------------------

Cruz would make a Solicitor General. That's his background and experience.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:28 PM (LXJ1e)

195 Perhaps the problem is that most people get all their income from pulling wages and take the standard deduction. They never get audited.

Add in those who don't work.

Are we at 51% yet? I think we're pretty close.

Posted by: Oschisms at February 18, 2016 05:28 PM (ZsN9X)

196 "I get the argument, but I really don't live in fear of this."

You must not work as a doctor, pharmacist, florist, baker, craft store owner, venue owner, party planner, or pastor.

Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2016 05:29 PM (3DIzJ)

197 Here you go. Ronald Reagan for GE Theatre

Living Better Electrically

Watch and learn from the master.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Lz1C53RwI

Posted by: JackStraw at February 18, 2016 05:29 PM (/tuJf)

198 Why is the IRS so sacrosanct?

Why cannot it not be eliminated?

The left pushed for national healthcare for years - they finally realized it.

Why can we not do the same?
Posted by: SH

____________


So we just rename it?

If somebody decides to no longer pay taxes, who then enforces it?

It's just semantics, so we change the name to United States Tax Enforcement?

I just don't see the appeal, I'm far more interested in reforming the tax code than changing the name of an agency.

As long as we have an income tax, some group of law enforcement is going to have the power to enforce tax laws.

I certainly hate the culture of the IRS, but I think any federal agency is usually going to be a cesspool of partisan Democrats.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:29 PM (74hKk)

199 >>>> Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM
------
Okay, I laughed. The damn pope got mugged and robbed. Maybe there is such a thing as cosmic justice

Posted by: L, Elle at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (2x3L+)

200 Religion *is* under attack, and we now have a government that feels
comfortable micro-managing and/or threatening the way people
express/practice it.
---
Unless it's islam.

The headchoppers can do whatever they want

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (ZbV+0)

201 Mebbe I was lied to, but as I recall I was told that overly protectionist tendencies in 1929-1930 helped turn a recession into the great depression.

--------------

America will be great again when we start manufacturing cheap toys and t-shirts and when our iphones cost $1,000.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (gmeXX)

202 Yeah , unlike Ted Cruz with all of his cross-over appeal?


Wishful thinking is a staple of the diet of the obsessed and rage-blinded.


Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (lLKKQ)

McCain supposedly had crossover appeal and so did Willard cause they were so moderate and all.
It amazes me that Trump people who are all "FIGHT THE MACHINE!?!" while at the same time mouthing the same talking points about "electability" as the GOPe.
I do not want a moderate. I do not want someone who appeals to liberals. I want a conservative and this is the first time in my adult life that I get to vote for one. That guy ain't Trump.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (NPofj)

203 Somebody help me out- exactly how was the IRS instituted, and how can it really be gotten rid of?

Posted by: kraken at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (sdxPm)

204 I forgot the EITC!

Posted by: Oschisms at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (ZsN9X)

205
I never said I "hate " Trump... So far I've made no decision....
Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:23 PM (/dSsq)


Sorry, too quick to hit Post. Whatever you *might* hate about him.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (uURQL)

206
because everybody knows it's election pandering. Might as well promise Root Beer in the drinking fountains.

I hate the IRS, but obviously some agency is going to be in charge of enforcing tax laws.

It's like saying we should abolish the DMV. Okay, but who handles license plate renewals, etc.?
Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:19 PM (74hKk)

--------------

Its trotted out every 4 years like clockwork. That's why Trump's plan is better than Cruz's, it fiddles around with the current system. Everybody knows the current tax regime and the IRS isn't going away with a complete overhaul the entire system.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:31 PM (LXJ1e)

207 I don't see a majority of the base eating another shit sandwich to support Trump like they had to do last time

A majority of the base apparently doesn't think that he is a sh^t sandwich , from the numbers.

You're wishful thinking does not translate into the real world.

It is Trump's gift to get people foaming at the mouth crazy I guess.

Here's hoping that he has exactly this effect on McConnell and Ryan etc.


Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:31 PM (lLKKQ)

208 I'm late because I did as Ace said and read that whole article... and his post. I think the Fishtown v Belmont thing holds weight and also crosses party loyalties. When Trump said the other day he preferred making "dreamers" of U.S. kids.... that spoke directly to what Dreher was getting at in his post.

He's the only one speaking to those voters.

Posted by: Yip at February 18, 2016 05:31 PM (e7T6D)

209 Somebody help me out- exactly how was the IRS instituted, and how can it really be gotten rid of?

-------------

Congress could defund it.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:31 PM (gmeXX)

210 I see Hillary! is wearing the coke bottle glasses again....How's that for a change of subject....

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:31 PM (/dSsq)

211 Lots of people, lots of liberals even, call themselves patriots

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (lVU49)


As they're burning flags and blaming America for every ill on Earth.

American Leftists only call themselves "patriots" as a tactical move. They hate America and everything about America (including themselves) and it has never been any sort of a secret. Barky hated the flag until he slimed into office and then he tried to hide behind the flag as he called true Americans "traitors" and spent every waking moment working to destroy America and any vestige of Americanism that was left. And the Vichy GOP were his toadies all the way through.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:31 PM (zc3Db)

212 So maybe I am finally getting it.

I note that in Trump's speeches he often says things like "the people in DC are stupid", "they make terrible deals", "they're terrible negotiators", etc., etc.

I mean, is that the *entire* allure of Trumpism? That he calls people in DC stupid and terrible? Is it really that shallow?

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (lVU49)

213 I find the debate over whether Cruz or Trump is sufficiently respectful of the Constitution to be amusing, but also beside the point. If the Republic has a Supreme Court that will probably be halfway stacked with hardcore ideologues, and presided over by a man who believes in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Obama Tax, then constitutional law has long since ceased to apply. For decades, depending on your perspective. Oh, and we have a Uniparty dedicated to undermining the basic protection of the American people.

You can say Cruz is a Constitutional scholar all you like, but so is Barack Obama. The difference is, one of those men has driven the government and bureaucracy towards his agenda. The other manifestly has not.

Posted by: trev006 at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (eg0e6)

214 So, union guys are just like welfare recipients. They just want a handout or subsidy. Maybe. Maybe some of them want the ability to negotiate collectively for a better wage so they can support a family. Maybe some of them pay attention to economics and understand that as unions have disintegrated the connection between productivity and wages has disappeared as well.

Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (1o3cX)

215 Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (UnJ7w)

Do Republicans know that Nationally they are only 24% of the electorate?

42% are independents? ie... feel they NEITHER political party represents them?

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (f7rv6)

216 Its trotted out every 4 years like clockwork. That's why Trump's plan is better than Cruz's, it fiddles around with the current system. Everybody knows the current tax regime and the IRS isn't going away with a complete overhaul the entire system.

-------------

I have never heard a major candidate campaign on eliminating the IRS.

Fiddling around with the current system - it has done wonders so far.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (gmeXX)

217 ...Why is the IRS so sacrosanct?...

Average people don't understand taxes. That is why SS, Medicare, and income taxes are collected by companies. Think union dues in a closed shop. People will pay H&R Block $50 or more to get a $500 refund or less and brag about it. Soon it won't matter anyway. Everyone will be getting subsidies and the more capable people will just get smaller subsidies than the hopelessly incapable. I'm not sure I'm kidding. The only fly-in-the-ointment is thugs and Government Agency Officials.

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (CRXed)

218 You're retarded, and not in a good way. And I say that will all due respect.Posted by: Dr Spank


Thank you for elevating the discourse in the only way available to you.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (fbovC)

219 I have no problem with people who support Trump because they want to destroy the GOPe or the single issue of building a wall. Those aren't my main criteria but I understand. It's the people who support Trump as someone who will govern from the Right that I don't understand. They ignore all of the evidence that contradicts that position.

What makes it worse is that there is a candidate that fits the criteria that the same people wanted in 2012 but complained the GOPe won't allow it.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (1g+wZ)

220 It's simple. He's the only non-politician running at a time when a lot of people hate politicians. He's a prodigy at working media. He says what a lot of people are actually thinking but no one else has the balls to say. He was born rich but he hung around his dad enough so that he's a New York street kid at heart. No need to over complicate it.

Next question is whether he can get climb over 35% as the field narrows, so that he can win primaries with over 50% of the vote. I say yes, but YMMV.

My understanding is that after mid-March, Republican primaries are winner take all, in which case even if he wins by plurality he'll still roll into Cleveland with a majority of delegates.

So I put his odds of getting the nomination at over 75%.

Posted by: Ignoramus at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (r1fLd)

221 Keep giving advice to your boy, Cruz, since he's obviously not running the type of campaign that's gonna win anything but Iowa and Texas.

You just keep taking your shots at Rubio. He's gonna beat your boy in South Carolina. How embarrassing!

I'm looking forward to your article on how to fix the Cruz campaign so he doesn't get embarrassed on Super Tuesday. You can just copy/paste from this one!

Posted by: JoeC at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (Lcy/t)

222 It amazes me that Trump people who are all "FIGHT THE MACHINE!?!" while
at the same time mouthing the same talking points about "electability"
as the GOPe.


Name one talking point I "mouthed". One.

I do not want a moderate. I do not want someone who appeals to liberals.

No more Reagans.

Got it.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (lLKKQ)

223 Do Trump supporters realize that a max 35% support of the republican base in the primaries does not translate to a majority in the general election? I don't see a majority of the base eating another shit sandwich to support Trump like they had to do last time with Romney. At least I won't. If I decide to "Burn It Down" I will vote for Sanders. No use in pussy footing around, lol.
Posted by: Arson Wells


I think you have it completely backwards, amigo.

The support for Turnip is a vote for making the GOPe eat the same shit sandwich they've foisted on their base for the past 25+ years.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (AA6QE)

224 It amazes me that Trump people who are all "FIGHT THE MACHINE!?!" while at the same time mouthing the same talking points about "electability" as the GOPe.
I do not want a moderate. I do not want someone who appeals to liberals. I want a conservative and this is the first time in my adult life that I get to vote for one. That guy ain't Trump.


Building a wall is not a moderate position. Stopping Muslim immigration is not a moderate position. But they are sensible ones.

Cruz has some good selling points - if he wins it, he's earned it. I just find Trump has the better overall package.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (uURQL)

225 42% are independents?

I'm a registered Independent.... I did it because the GOP pissed me off, but I'm Conservative....

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (/dSsq)

226
America will be great again when we start manufacturing cheap toys and t-shirts and when our iphones cost $1,000.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (gmeXX)

It'll be so great once we have all those people employed on manufacturing cheap toys and shoes, earning what people employed on manufacturing cheap toys and shoes earn. Some of them will even be able to own more than one pair of shoes, if they're lucky.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:34 PM (89I+i)

227 176 I just don't buy that Trump has changed the convo on immigration, Rs spent all of Bush 43s term talking about building a wall, not Bush 41, Bush 43, just a few years ago. Now if he was talking about going after the members of the gentry conservatives (and limousine libs) who are hiring the illegals and abusing the H-1B visas yeah, I'd say he's changing the convo because that's where the problem is, not the lack of a wall.
Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (AfES1)

The problem is the well off Republican donors use illegal labor just as much as the rich Democrats do.

Illegals keep their wages down by suppressing Everyone's Wages. That means businesses can keep their costs down. The Republican may not hire an illegal Guatemalan nanny, but the thousands of illegal Guatemalan nannies keep the price of a legal nanny down too.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:34 PM (v0YLX)

228 Somebody help me out- exactly how was the IRS instituted

Like ALL Federal Institutions it was established with limited aims and powers and then grew out of control and exists now only to increase it's own power.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:34 PM (mw8Dm)

229 I mean, is that the *entire* allure of Trumpism? That he calls people in DC stupid and terrible? Is it really that shallow?

Well, his wife and daughter are exceptionally hot, so you know.

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:34 PM (LAe3v)

230 Problem is that we are not electing the Chief Arguer of the Country... we are electing the Chief Executive.
Posted by: Don Quixote at February 18, 2016 05:25 PM (f7rv6)

And that has nothing to do with my argument in post 156.

I'll argue that since Scalia is gone this next presidency should be about Scalia's next appointment and the 2-3 upcoming. One more liberal justice on the court and there will be tangible negative outcomes that you will feel everyday. I'm sorry but since Scalia's death The Great Trump Wetback Wall Of America is not enough make Trump the republican nominee.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:34 PM (UnJ7w)

231 Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:22 PM

------

Okay, I laughed. The damn pope got mugged and robbed. Maybe there is such a thing as cosmic justice

Posted by: L, Elle at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (2x3L+)


What is the world coming to when the pope gets mugged? Nobody has any respect anymore.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (NPofj)

232

35 + 18 = 53


53 percent of the base is REALLY pissed off at the party

have they figured that out yet?

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (zOTsN)

233 Even taking multiple sides of policies doesn't hurt him, because the gope have trained us to believe we can't get any of what we want no matter how we vote.

Yep, that's the heart of the matter. Sure Trump is full of crap. Sure he's been all over the place. Sure we can't really rely on him to follow through on his promises. But we know we can't trust the GOPe either, and they keep crapping on our heads while in power. So... the hell with them and the horse the rode in on.

I think the desperation is palpable, and on a larger scale than just "how does this impact me?" but in "OMG the world as we know it is disappearing"

This is very very important for the GOP to understand and remember. There is a good 40% or more of the nation that is going WHAT. THE. HELL??? to what has happened over the last five years. And that goes across party lines. Joe Union steelworker isn't particularly overjoyed with homosexual marriage and twisty lightbulbs either, even though he's voted Democrat every election since he was 14.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (39g3+)

234 191. And no politician has said how amnesty will end shadow workers. Just why is Juan going to register and have his paycheck raped with all the FICA and shit citizens have taken out of paychecks instead of continuing to be under the table and his wife pretends she is single and getting full welfare w/o the state deducting his earnings from all that sweet Uncle Sam sugar daddy cash?

Can we find one honest person with access to a microphone to say "we can't have both open borders and this super cozy welfare net"

IMO both things are bad but its absolutely unsustainable to have both of them.

Posted by: PaleRider at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (dkExz)

235 The support for Turnip is a vote for making the GOPe
eat the same shit sandwich they've foisted on their base for the past
25+ years.



Posted by: weft cut-loop


With ketchup. LOTS of ketchup.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (lLKKQ)

236 Mario?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (FkBIv)

237 >>>The Declaration of Independence wasn't about keeping money in one's pockets, though it's a related concept.

the declaration enshrined "the pursuit of happiness" as among the top three rights of man (along with life and liberty).

The word "happiness" was originally "property." They changed it to be more expansive and to sound less materialistic, but the idea was still that if getting rich was your idea of happiness, then it was a core right of man to pursue that.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (dciA+)

238 Posted by: mega machines


What I'm saying is you're really stupid, possibly brain damaged. You may want to get that checked out. I'm just looking out for you, and your retarded brain.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (TJCSB)

239 and tell me how you will win without Cruz and Trump

you won't

people will stay home

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (zOTsN)

240 212 So maybe I am finally getting it.

I note that in Trump's speeches he often says things like "the people in DC are stupid", "they make terrible deals", "they're terrible negotiators", etc., etc.

I mean, is that the *entire* allure of Trumpism? That he calls people in DC stupid and terrible? Is it really that shallow?
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (lVU49)


------------------


Is it not true?

Posted by: Soona at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (Fmupd)

241
No more Reagans.

Got it.


Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (lLKKQ)
Reagan never appealed to liberals by defending liberal policies. That's what Dukakis and Mondale did.
Reagan appealed to non-ideological voters by proposing conservative policies, not liberal ones.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (89I+i)

242 "The reason Trump pulls 35-40% of the GOP is because 35-40% of the GOP feels so left behind and so threatened that they don't really feel like they have the luxury of worrying about what seems to them to be airy, second-order concerns.

They're worried about having a roof over their head."


Yep.

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 05:36 PM (TZYqp)

243 Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (dciA+)

---

He's got the glad-hand kind of salesmanship, where you say whatever it is you think the customer wants to hear. You want the suit in blue? We'll turn on the blue light: see? Now it's blue!

I don't think he understands the product he is selling - or, worse, he figures his customers can't understand it, so he doesn't even try to sell its actual merits. His benefit statements (what this product will do for your life) are all unsupported (they lack any demonstration of how this product works to produce that benefit).

Moreover, because he's a glad-hander, his message changes depending on what group he's talking to. Lucky for him that so many people are used to hearing flip-flops and tuning out whichever flip or flop they don't like.

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:36 PM (eetvJ)

244 Who's ready for a late afternoon Bloody Mary?

Posted by: Yip at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (e7T6D)

245 but the idea was still that if getting rich was your idea of happiness, then it was a core right of man to pursue that.

------------

just as it is a core right for me to take it from you so I can go to college

Posted by: Sander's Supporter at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (gmeXX)

246 188 Do Trump supporters realize that a max 35% support of the republican base in the primaries does not translate to a majority in the general election? I don't see a majority of the base eating another shit sandwich to support Trump like they had to do last time with Romney. At least I won't. If I decide to "Burn It Down" I will vote for Sanders. No use in pussy footing around, lol.
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:27 PM (UnJ7w)

------------------

35% is not his max. The recent Quinnipatic poll questioned the Repub respondents about if each particular candidate would win the general. 77% said Trump would win, the highest of all candidates. I think Cruz and Rubio were in the mid-60s.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (LXJ1e)

247 I get the argument, but I really don't live in fear of this."

You must not work as a doctor, pharmacist, florist, baker, craft store owner, venue owner, party planner, or pastor.
Posted by: Lauren



I get that argument and am on the side of business owners in those cases, but it's not my front and center issue and I don't think it is for most right-leaning voters.

Something like 2nd Amendment rights are more in jeopardy, especially with a change in the SC.

but yea, the new rules are sexual orientation=skin color in terms of litigation. I don't see that changing no matter who's President

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (74hKk)

248 Do Trump supporters realize that a max 35% support of the republican base in the primaries does not translate to a majority in the general election?

So 65% of the GOP base wants to stay home next election?

Note this: Liberals hate Bush, hate Fox ... and Trump has picked a fight with both.

He's already built up more crossover cred than any other GOP candidate.

Is it enough to win? Don't care. GOPe. Murder weapon. Apply good and hard.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (uURQL)

249 America will be great again when we start manufacturing cheap toys and t-shirts and when our iphones cost $1,000.

Apropos to nothing, have you priced an unsubsidized smartphone? IIRC the Galaxy Edge S6 last year clocked in over $1k. Lotta things folks never see the real price of in this country...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (9krrF)

250 Posted by: JoeC at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (Lcy/t)

If you don't like Ace's posts about Trump then instead of lecturing him on what to write, why don't you fuck off back to Breitbart? Not that Ace needs me to speak for him though, that's just my opinion.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (UnJ7w)

251 Somebody help me out- exactly how was the IRS instituted, and how can it really be gotten rid of?

Posted by: kraken at February 18, 2016 05:30 PM (sdxPm)


You really need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the feral income tax - to repeal the 16th, allow for a feral sales tax and to detail how the income tax can not come back without repealing the feral sales tax - very explicitly. Otherwise, no matter what anyone says you can be sure that it will return - and not after very long.

Needless to say, none of this is going to happen and the feral government is too money hungry to ever just junk the IRS without some replacement of equal or greater cashflow.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (zc3Db)

252 "I know the Trump supporters want me to note that new polls suggest that yesterday's WSJ/NBC most-likely-an-outlier poll is in fact most likely an outlier."

Screw the Trump supporters (me being one of them). It's not like we didn;t already know. Just write Ace, Ace. That's what butters our biscuits.

Posted by: Sarah Palin at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (3dOE/)

253 Re: Cruz selling the sizzle, not the steak.
Dale Carnegie 101:
"Here's my proposal, and here's why it's good for you."
Reagan had it down. Every graduate of a Carnegie Sales class has it down.
Why Cruz, an otherwise smart guy, can't do it is beyond me.
"No one ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American public." P.T. Barnum

Posted by: MarkY at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (zW3lH)

254 My concern is the electorate's worldview and ideology have shifted away from those who strive for limited, small government and the freedom and liberty that accompanies it. I have gut feeling there are more people that would gladly give up some or all of their freedoms for a guaranteed roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and a few trinkets to play with.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Posted by: Dead Parrot Society at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (AJeMv)

255
I mean, is that the *entire* allure of Trumpism? That he calls people in DC stupid and terrible? Is it really that shallow?

Well, his wife and daughter are exceptionally hot, so you know.
---
And I get to tell obamavoters that I support Trump in an effort to restore the dignity of the Presidency.

Posted by: Methos, AoS commenter since 2006, apparently also non-voting democrat at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (ZbV+0)

256 Something like 2nd Amendment rights are more in jeopardy, especially with a change in the SC.

-----------

They are equally in jeopardy because if you do not follow the 1st A, you probably won't follow the 2nd.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (gmeXX)

257 The whole point of ace's post completely escapes the Ted Cruz - obsessed and the Trump - deranged.

Ted Cruz needs to take a page from Trump's campaign and Reagan's speeches in order to win.

I guess ace is 'mouthing talking points' too?

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:39 PM (lLKKQ)

258 >>I mean, is that the *entire* allure of Trumpism? That he calls people in DC stupid and terrible? Is it really that shallow?

No. You're ignoring the second part of every statement he makes.

The people in DC are dumb and make bad deals and jobs go to China or Mexico.

I will bring in great people like the people in my great business that makes great things and they will make great deals that will bring back jobs from China and Mexico.

That's what a huge number of people want to hear. They don't want to hear complex policy issues. They don't want to hear about pain and suffering. They want someone to identify the same problem they see and tell them it will be fixed.

Trump does that. I personally think he's full of crap but it works on a large number of people.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 18, 2016 05:39 PM (/tuJf)

259 Trump lost my vote with his Saturday night performance. Again I'm in Texas so it shouldn't matter. I said I would never vote for a Democrat and I won't begin with Trump.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (1g+wZ)

260 Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (LXJ1e)

Please, other than Hillary Clinton, Trumps negatives are in the stratosphere. Don't kid yourself. Trump is a bonafide third party candidate running in the republican party.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (UnJ7w)

261 A little OT, but surprise surprise the MSM misreported the Pope's statement on contraception.

He was not affirming the use of contraception, which would have been a huge departure from Catholic teaching, but rather reaffirming the moral validity of avoiding pregnancy.

How? NFP.

You know, the stance the Catholic Church has taken since forever.

Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (Dwl2T)

262 Maybe some of them pay attention to economics and
understand that as unions have disintegrated the connection between
productivity and wages has disappeared as well.

Posted by: Stickety


Yup, that would certainly explain the economic success story that is the American auto industry.

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (LAe3v)

263
Moreover, because he's a glad-hander, his message changes depending on what group he's talking to. Lucky for him that so many people are used to hearing flip-flops and tuning out whichever flip or flop they don't like.
Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:36 PM (eetvJ)

--------------

Are you kidding me? His message is very consistent.

1) Build a wall,
2) DC pols are stupid
3) American government should work for Americans
4) Fix whats broken (VA, Defense especially)
5) Close useless organizations (DoE, EPA especially)

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (LXJ1e)

264 ...Rs spent all of Bush 43s term talking about building a wall...

W was given the authority and had the money authorized to build a fence. He didn't want to build a fence. McCain I'll-build-your-dam-fence didn't want to build a fence. Mitt was born in Mexico.

They are all NWO globalist. They were running for President of the world not the US. Trump is most likely a NWO type of guy too. But he might fire one incompetent person in the VA.

God will take out the NWO (tower of babel).

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (CRXed)

265 Here you go. Ronald Reagan for GE Theatre Living Better Electrically Watch and learn from the master. 
Posted by: JackStraw


I have a next door neighbor, in his 80's now, former GE in satellite systems, whose eyes still get teary remembering sitting through a couple of Reagan speeches. He twisted every single solitary family on our block to show up on election day against Carter.

I can still remember pulling up to the polls before sunrise on election day and seeing all my neighbors in line in front of me. 'You're late', they all said.

The power of that man and his vision.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (fbovC)

266 Trump does that. I personally think he's full of crap but it works on a large number of people.

------------

And yet, Ted Cruz is the pandering one they say.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (gmeXX)

267 this isnt that complicated. Are you a citizen of the world, a globalist


or do you believe in sovereign identity of the United States

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (zOTsN)

268 Please, other than Hillary Clinton, Trumps negatives are in the stratosphere. Don't kid yourself. Trump is a bonafide third party candidate running in the republican party

Not sure what He is, but Saturday soured Me too.... He needs to think before He speaks...

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (/dSsq)

269 The word "happiness" was originally "property." They changed it to be more expansive and to sound less materialistic, but the idea was still that if getting rich was your idea of happiness, then it was a core right of man to pursue that.
Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (dciA+)


"We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor" is a horrible Get Rich scheme.

The Right to Own Property is an essential part of the American ideal, but it follows other principles that a purely material/economic view incorrectly neglects.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (uURQL)

270 Do Trump supporters realize that a max 35% support of the republican base in the primaries does not translate to a majority in the general election?




The head to head polls I've seen have Trump tied with Cruz when it comes to a General Election with Hillary.

Rubio outperforms all of them, but it's within the margin of error.

They've all been pretty consistent in that aspect, Cruz and Trump are basically identical in support in a General election.

The idea that Trump has some crossover appeal is not far fetched.

With Cruz, you'd have to bank on a pretty epic base turnout. I personally don't believe that model works, the whole idea all of these Evangelicals are sitting out elections seems far fetched

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (74hKk)

271 The problem is the well off Republican donors use illegal labor just as much as the rich Democrats do.



Illegals keep their wages down by suppressing Everyone's Wages. That
means businesses can keep their costs down. The Republican may not hire
an illegal Guatemalan nanny, but the thousands of illegal Guatemalan
nannies keep the price of a legal nanny down too.



Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:34 PM (v0YLX)
That's a myth. Where do you think illegals work? What are the wages illegals keep down? The wages of gardeners and nannys?

Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys. And the vast majority of people who employ illegal immigrants as nannys, wouldn't just pay double to have an American citizen, who has access to comparable standards of income by not working and staying on welfare instead, working as a nanny.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (89I+i)

272

do you put United States Citizens first, or Central Americans?

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (zOTsN)

273 Ace, your use of the 'gentry' term reminds me of Michael O Church's 3 class system, with partially-overlapping hierarchies of (roughly) labor> gentry>elite classes. The gentry class inhabits the professions, values intellectualism, and aspires to self-actualization and cultural influence (heroes include Steven Pinker and Jon Stewart). I think a bit of demagoguing on gentry issues with rightward valence like H1B competition and its surrounding issues + the rising cost of family formation would tap into a huge reservoir of voters for the Rs.

Posted by: Svejk at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (wj5Qt)

274 Marco Rubio Says Cops Racist Against Blacks & He, Too Has Felt Sting of Racism

Breitbart

THIS is why Trump is so popular. It has more to do with the RINOs he is running against than anything he is or actually says

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (mw8Dm)

275 Here's my question. Why is it that when it comes to eradicating unions around the country, the GOP is a well oiled machine? Whatever state they take over, they roll out multiple laws attacking collective bargaining and craft loopholes to make it easier for businesses to avoid paying overtime. However, when it comes to securing the border, the GOP is never capable of doing a single freaking thing. When it comes to importing cheap labor to replace American workers, the GOP gets things done lickety split. But yeah, the few remaining union workers should worry about the 500 bucks they have to pay in union dues because that is where they are really getting screwed. Union bashing is a red herring intentionally planted so that the GOP can continue to drive down wages and supply their corporate overlords with cheap labor.

Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (1o3cX)

276 I mean, is that the *entire* allure of Trumpism? That he calls people in DC stupid and terrible? Is it really that shallow?
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (lVU49)

------------------

Is it not true?

Posted by: Soona at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (Fmupd)
---

Accurate diagnosis of the problem is only the first step. Note that Cruz also correctly identifies the Washington weaklings as a problem.

Trump doesn't really tell us how he's going to solve the problem. He'll 'make great deals,' he'll 'win,' he'll get 'top people' to work on the problem... but anyone can say that, and in fact all politicians DO say that.

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (eetvJ)

277 At one time, I hoped I would see a Trump/ Cruz ticket. That I could trust to give us a conservative, constitutional US Supreme Court. That Cruz would keep Trump from doing stupid, unconstitutional executive orders.

I think we are likely to see Trump/ Kasich or Trump / Haley? Someone from the GOPe in the VP spot. Someone who will be whispering in Trumps ear, "compromise, we can get along with Harry and Nancy."

And we will build the wall NEXT year, but we need to make these illegals legal THIS year.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (v0YLX)

278 Trump has zero credibility. Every statement comes with an expiration date. I can't fathom why anyone would believe a word he says.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (kf2iZ)

279 " They changed it to be more expansive and to sound less materialistic, but the idea was still that if getting rich was your idea of happiness, then it was a core right of man to pursue that. "

Well, that and the whole slavery thing.

Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (iweze)

280 The gopE is dead to me.

I will vote for anyone running against their ass clownery.

Trump. Cruz. I like both......

Posted by: Hairyback GuyG at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (ZkjKd)

281 119
he is very good at selling himself to 15-20% of the population, and turning out to be rather bad at selling himself to the 51% needed to win.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:14 PM (dciA+)
----------------------
THIS x 1000.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (T/5A0)

282 We don't like the dog food.

Posted by: The dogs at February 18, 2016 05:42 PM (FkBIv)

283 So, union guys are just like welfare recipients. They just want a handout or subsidy. Maybe. Maybe some of them want the ability to negotiate collectively for a better wage so they can support a family. Maybe some of them pay attention to economics and understand that as unions have disintegrated the connection between productivity and wages has disappeared as well.

Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 05:32 PM (1o3cX)


LOL.

Unions are thugs who think that if someone hiures you to do a job then you are entitled to ownership in that business. They are scum. They don't want to "negotiate collectively", they want to be given ownership in the business so that they, and only they, determine who the business can hire and who the business can fire and only for reasons the union deems appropriate.

Unions that promote closed shops (and that is all they do, really) are offensive, anti-capitalistic thieves who think that they are entitled to the wealth and innovations of others. They are despicable scum whose existence is wholly un-Constitutional and never should have been allowed.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 18, 2016 05:43 PM (zc3Db)

284 It amazes me that Trump people who are all "FIGHT
THE MACHINE!?!" while at the same time mouthing the same talking points
about "electability" as the GOPe.

I do not want a moderate. I do not want someone who appeals to
liberals. I want a conservative and this is the first time in my adult
life that I get to vote for one. That guy ain't Trump.



Building a wall is not a moderate position. Stopping Muslim
immigration is not a moderate position. But they are sensible ones.



Cruz has some good selling points - if he wins it, he's earned it. I just find Trump has the better overall package.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:33 PM (uURQL)


As I said, I am all for a wall. But the Presidency is about way more than that. Trump is a moderate and I don't buy his road to the White House conversion on... anything.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:43 PM (NPofj)

285 35% is not his max. The recent Quinnipatic poll questioned the Repub respondents about if each particular candidate would win the general. 77% said Trump would win, the highest of all candidates. I think Cruz and Rubio were in the mid-60s.
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:37 PM (LXJ1e)


Yeah, look, during the last debate I said "he'll need to apologize" and "we are truly in Idiocracy land if he's still winning after this." So, I'm not saying I'm rooting for this. But all this talk about Trump's ceiling is ignoring his head-to-head poll numbers vs. Clinton. They exist. And they aren't 15-20%.

He draws from independents and Dems as well, whatever his ceiling is with Republicans.

Posted by: AD at February 18, 2016 05:43 PM (QWY55)

286 Ace, I think you're really off that Rubio supporters like him, at base, because they're signaling something about their class. I mean, it is eve true that college-educated voters are going more for Mario than others. Maybe somewhat, but didn't Trump do really well across the board in NH?

Plus, Ace, you're clearly college-educated (and then some). Like, you read The Devil's Pleasure Palace, ok?!?! But you hate Mario. And you have your reasons (sounds mostly like it's a twitter beef). Anyway, I don't like Rubio because I'm trying to tell people I went to college. I'm signaling to my fellow Tufts grads that I'm one of them. (You really need to take it easy on the class crap. You sound like a Marxist sometimes.)

I like Mario slightly more than Cruz because he's more likable, seems like he'd appeal much better to non-conservatives than Cruz, immigration isn't my big issue, and Cruz rubs me wrong sometimes. But I'd happily vote for Cruz in a general (or even in a primary, if Rubes were out or effectively finished). I think there are a lot of people who fall into my position, and it's got nothing to do with where I went to college.

Posted by: gts109 at February 18, 2016 05:43 PM (KIvt1)

287 ...his message changes depending on what group he's talking to...

You have to put the name of who you are talking about in front of a statement like the above. Describes 90% of the people I know and 100% of the politicians, managers, preachers and a lot of other professions. :-)

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 05:43 PM (CRXed)

288 274 Marco Rubio Says Cops Racist Against Blacks & He, Too Has Felt Sting of Racism

Breitbart

Breitbart is totally in the Trump camp... They don't even like Cruz.... I wonder what Andrew would think about His "legacy.?" "

Posted by: donna at February 18, 2016 05:44 PM (/dSsq)

289 We don't like the dog food.
Posted by: The dogs

Who let you out?

Posted by: ancient reference at February 18, 2016 05:44 PM (zmW4B)

290 TRUMP 2016!--HE'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:44 PM (HqpV0)

291 Maybe some of them want the ability to negotiate collectively for a better wage so they can support a family.

------------

Did I miss something? Has this right been taken away from them?

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:44 PM (gmeXX)

292 Svejk, I imagine that's correct, but for some reason Republican politicians are just born stupid and can never recover from the circumstances of their birth.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:44 PM (dciA+)

293 What I'm saying is you're really stupid, possibly brain damaged. You may want to get that checked out. I'm just looking out for you, and your retarded brain.Posted by: Dr Spank


Once again, thank you for elevating the discourse in the only way available to you.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 05:45 PM (fbovC)

294 I don't think he understands the product he is selling - or, worse, he
figures his customers can't understand it, so he doesn't even try to
sell its actual merits. His benefit statements (what this product will
do for your life) are all unsupported (they lack any demonstration of
how this product works to produce that benefit).


We used to call such people "snake oil salesmen".

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:45 PM (LAe3v)

295 crap, typo central in my post

Posted by: gts109 at February 18, 2016 05:45 PM (KIvt1)

296 reposted for clarity:

ALL politicians are paid liars.
They lie to get votes. Fake passion, fake idealism, fake "beliefs" . All the mudslinging and insults and lawsuits are just a warm-up act , preparation for playing the D.C. version of Kabuki theater.

It's as real as pro-wrestling.

People who "fall in love" with candidates are like pathetic dudes who "fall in love" with strippers.
Your value to her is the last dollar bill that you put in her g-string , dude.

Let it go.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:45 PM (lLKKQ)

297 SANDERS 2016! ONE MORE CENTURY OF SOCIALISM!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:45 PM (HqpV0)

298 Do Trump supporters realize that a max 35% support of the republican base in the primaries does not translate to a majority in the general election?

***

he isn't limited to his current 35% any more than the other candidates are limited to their poll numbers. There are plenty of people who presently cannot imagine voting for each of them but will do so when it comes down to brass tacks.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (8PbKi)

299 Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (LXJ1e)

6) Cruz is absolutely eligible to be president; I'm gonna so that nasty canadian Cruz!
7) I absolutely oppose banning partial birth abortion and PP is great!; I have a friend who was partially aborted not nice!
Romney doesn't have a heart for wanting to make the illegals leave!; I'm gonna build a wall and Mexico's gonna pay for it!
9) Ben Carson is a crazy child molester!; that nasty Cruz is attacking wonderful Ben Carson!

I could go on all night.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (UnJ7w)

Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (HqpV0)

301 251--- Thanks for the explanation. So there's no Executive Order solution for driving a stake in the IRS. To someone else upthread who said a GOP ticket without Trump and/or Cruz is DOA, I agree. They both have their appeal for me... that being not GOPe. That is why I was even favorably disposed towards Paul. Just sick of Washington politics.

Posted by: kraken at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (sdxPm)

302
Just to be clear, I'm a Cruz supporter from the get go. I'll work for him as much as possible if he wins the nomination.

But I also could pull the lever for Trump.

And a ticket featuring both would be fine by me.

I want my country back.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (P/8aq)

303 And yet, Ted Cruz is the pandering one they say.

They all pander. That's politics. The mascot animal of the Uniparty should be the pander-bear. (Additional symbolism from such is left as an exercise to the Horde.)

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Restorationist at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (9krrF)

304 My concern is the electorate's worldview and
ideology have shifted away from those who strive for limited, small
government and the freedom and liberty that accompanies it. I have gut
feeling there are more people that would gladly give up some or all of
their freedoms for a guaranteed roof over their heads, food in their
bellies, and a few trinkets to play with.

I would love to be proven wrong.


Posted by: Dead Parrot Society at February 18, 2016 05:38 PM (AJeMv)

You may be right and that's a good wrap-up of Trump's appeal, but those people need to told they're being mislead.

Those left behind and so threatened people Ace mentions will benefit from Trump's policies even less than blacks benefited from Obama's policies. They'll only find themselves even more behind.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (89I+i)

305 I get the argument, but I really don't live in fear of this.

You should. Losing the ability to believe how you wish and live that out is one of the most fundamental rights you have.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (39g3+)

306 "Trump doesn't really tell us how he's going to solve the problem. He'll
'make great deals,' he'll 'win,' he'll get 'top people' to work on the
problem... but anyone can say that, and in fact all politicians DO say
that."

Deals with whom? I assume that means Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? They're just going to roll over because he donated thousands to their campaigns in 2008? Oy gevalt.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (kf2iZ)

307 275.


Most of the "union busting" is simply having a law that a worker doesn't have to join a union against their will.

That should already be a Constitutionally protected right anyway with Freedom of Association.

Imagine if say an oil company made all of its workers donate to Republican candidates or get fired, people would be screaming bloody murder yet that's what every Union basically does.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:47 PM (74hKk)

308 MARIO 2016! IT'S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:47 PM (HqpV0)

309
Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:46 PM (HqpV0)


Well I only agree with 1/2 of what you said

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:47 PM (mw8Dm)

310 Trump is moving toward the middle with his words. Indicating he thinks he has the nomination. We might know Monday if this is true. I don't think promising free stuff from the government is going to hurt him in SC.

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 05:47 PM (CRXed)

311 "Maybe some of them want the ability to negotiate collectively for a better wage so they can support a family. "

My husband was a Teamster.

Maybe you like working with guys who slack off and make your job harder, but he sure didn't.

Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2016 05:47 PM (iweze)

312

I dont know if the GOP can win the general with Trump, but I know they cannot win without his supporters

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (zOTsN)

313 >>then you will see something worse than Donald Trump arising


yes, Mikey, you will. This is only the entre'; the main course will make all this look flaccid and jejune

Posted by: Mussolini w/o the funny hat and black shirt at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (8CdUx)

314 I somehow clicked on an article about Kasich yesterday.

The title wasn't (in Ace's lexicon) : Is this a thing?
The title, like every single story about Kasich was: You bet your sweet ass this is a mother-fucking thing!

And then a nice picture, where Kasich didn't quite look like Garry Shandling's worried face.

This bullshit animates me, and if I find the fuckers who pay writers to write this shit, I will animate them.

FYI just woke up from a nap.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (VdICR)

315 Trump doesn't really tell us how he's going to solve the problem.

Because it's unfixable.

Posted by: $19,212,724,305.49 at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (lLKKQ)

316 Most of the "union busting" is simply having a law that a worker doesn't have to join a union against their will.

-----------

Yep, and unions typically do not do very well when they cannot force people to join. No one is against workers collective bargaining. We are against workers being forced to collectively bargain against their own will.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (gmeXX)

317 I dont know if the GOP can win the general with Trump, but I know they cannot win without his supporters
Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (zOTsN)


Sigh...And there is the fat lady singing

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 18, 2016 05:49 PM (mw8Dm)

318 Exactly it will take 15 to 22 years to fix what the uniparty hath wrought on us.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 18, 2016 05:49 PM (LoRcb)

319 ALL politicians are paid liars.
They lie to get votes. Fake passion, fake idealism, fake "beliefs" . All the mudslinging and insults and lawsuits are just a warm-up act , preparation for playing the D.C. version of Kabuki theater.

It's as real as pro-wrestling.

People who "fall in love" with candidates are like pathetic dudes who "fall in love" with strippers.
Your value to her is the last dollar bill that you put in her g-string , dude.

Let it go.
Posted by: Mortimer


For the most part, this. But without the dingy allegory.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 05:49 PM (AA6QE)

320 I support the two candidates that are not gope: Trump and Cruz.

Cruz supporters should think hard about what VP he would choose.

Cruz/RINO is a very bad thing.

Posted by: eman at February 18, 2016 05:50 PM (mR7Es)

321 Trump doesn't really tell us how he's going to solve
the problem. He'll 'make great deals,' he'll 'win,' he'll get 'top
people' to work on the problem... but anyone can say that, and in fact
all politicians DO say that.

Posted by: stuiec


Precisely. He is a hope and fear monger, nothing more, but the hopeless and fearful will vote for him.

Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:50 PM (LAe3v)

322 Are you kidding me? His message is very consistent.

1) Build a wall,
2) DC pols are stupid
3) American government should work for Americans
4) Fix whats broken (VA, Defense especially)
5) Close useless organizations (DoE, EPA especially)


Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 05:40 PM (LXJ1e)
---

Consistent for whole months at a time.

"Build a wall" was actually part of US public policy well before I heard Donald Trump bring it up. So was "eliminate waste, fraud and abuse," "close Cabinet-level departments that don't make sense," and "Washington politicians are the worst."

Here's an example of where he isn't consistent: he won't tell you his foolproof strategy to defeat ISIS, because that would telegraph his intentions to the enemy (set aside that since saying that, he's stated several things about bombing them and taking their oil). But he's all about telling what he's gonna do to Ted Cruz if Cruz doesn't apologize -- thus enabling Cruz to call his bluff ("file the lawsuit, Donald").

You hear the parts of what Trump says that you like, and you either ignore, forget or discount the parts you don't. It's what all politicians and slick salesmen count on.

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 05:50 PM (eetvJ)

323 BTW, and I shared this with the Decision Desk when I returned from exit polling.

Although I didn't engage in political discussions at the precinct, voters wanted to share their thoughts with me, so I listened. A number of them stated that if Trump would tone it down, just a little bit, that they would like to vote for him.

All he has to do is reduce how much squirm he induces and his numbers will go up.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 18, 2016 05:51 PM (8PbKi)

324 pep there is alot to be afraid of

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:51 PM (zOTsN)

325 ...That should already be a Constitutionally protected right anyway with Freedom of Association...

Most Judges and Lawyers are either homosexuals or like homosexuals more than they like average people. Homosexuals tend to be talkers. Average people tend to be doers.

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 05:51 PM (CRXed)

326 Precisely. He is a hope and fear monger, nothing more, but the hopeless and fearful will vote for him.
Posted by: pep at February 18, 2016 05:50 PM (LAe3v)


Don't forget the angry. The cold rage burns.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:51 PM (uURQL)

327 I really don't live in fear that I'm not going to get to worship the way I want or attend Church.
***
We are already seeing the criminalization of Christianity in the US, if that doesn't terrify you I don't know what would.

Specifically I think the government is embracing the Chinese model. They will allow churches that ape the government's view on the issues of the day, and destroy those that do not.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 05:51 PM (5LOno)

328 Close useless organizations (DoE, EPA especially)

-----------

I guess I missed those suggestions from Trump. Sounds good to me. Might as well throw in the IRS too.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (gmeXX)

329 For the most part, this. But without the dingy allegory.


Was I talking about boats again?

#medcheck

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (lLKKQ)

330 271 The problem is the well off Republican donors use illegal labor just as much as the rich Democrats do.


That's a myth. Where do you think illegals work? What are the wages illegals keep down? The wages of gardeners and nannys?

Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys. And the vast majority of people who employ illegal immigrants as nannys, wouldn't just pay double to have an American citizen, who has access to comparable standards of income by not working and staying on welfare instead, working as a nanny.
Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 05:41 PM (89I+i)


No, it is a fact, illegal labor depresses the wage of everyone.

I worked part time on the weekends cleaning an office building. They decided to contract it out to a janitorial service instead. The contract was for less than they paid me and the regular janitor. The replacements only spoke Spanish.

And that was in the 70s.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (v0YLX)

331 >>My concern is the electorate's worldview and
ideology have shifted away from those who strive for limited, small
government and the freedom and liberty that accompanies it. I have gut
feeling there are more people that would gladly give up some or all of
their freedoms for a guaranteed roof over their heads, food in their
bellies, and a few trinkets to play with.



I think you're missing the basic rule of sales.

You're right, most people don't have a vision of limited government or freedom or liberty. Those are principles that don't necessarily translate into benefits to an individual, particularly not someone who is worried about their job or their home.

Trump isn't selling limited government or freedom or liberty, he is selling his ability to make sure you have a huge and luxurious home, he will bring your job back from China and stop those people from coming in from out southern borders who are making you unsafe and stealing your liberty.

Selling limited government, liberty and freedom is selling features. Trump is selling benefits.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (/tuJf)

332 Cruz hit on something profound last night when he talked about the need for a stable dollar. He accurately diagnosed that one of the reasons the price of oil has fluctuated so much over the past seven years is due to the drastic fluctuations in the value of the US dollar. Unstable monetary policy, combined with a suffocating regulatory environment, affects the labor market in a very large way. I'm all for sealing the border and putting the clamps on illegal immigration, but achieving a stable monetary policy and deregulating labor markets will do far more for the labor prospects of the low-class worker. Cruz needs to begin hammering these points and show why this will work and Trump's mishmash of tariffs and economic protectionism won't work.

Posted by: Dale Earnhardt at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (EyWwe)

333 >>>Ace, I think you're really off that Rubio supporters like him, at base, because they're signaling something about their class. I mean, it is eve true that college-educated voters are going more for Mario than others.

Correct, I don't like that mario supporters are essentially trying to show they're "better" than other candidates' supporters. Vote for who you like but don't do this ugly class signalling bullshit.

Trump did well across most groups in NH, yes, but it's pretty plain from my twitter TL that Rubio supporters are very proud to be of the Collegiate Class. All they do is signal.

>>>Plus, Ace, you're clearly college-educated (and then some). Like, you read The Devil's Pleasure Palace, ok?!?!

I didn't read it yet. I began it.

>>>But you hate Mario. And you have your reasons (sounds mostly like it's a twitter beef). Anyway, I don't like Rubio because I'm trying to tell people I went to college. I'm signaling to my fellow Tufts grads that I'm one of them. (You really need to take it easy on the class crap. You sound like a Marxist sometimes.)

I think Marx is right that classes have class interests and fight each other politically for position in society. I think people who deny this are... silly, I think I'd say.

>>>I like Mario slightly more than Cruz because he's more likable, seems like he'd appeal much better to non-conservatives than Cruz, immigration isn't my big issue, and Cruz rubs me wrong sometimes.

Here's where I get very annoyed. You're saying that Rubio would appeal to "more people." You seem to be completely ignoring the Trump contingent -- a big minority. A minority, yes, but a big one.

You're just blowing those people off, despite the fact that Amnesty and immigration ARE big things to them.

Cruz is at least anti-amnesty. There's no doubt about that (though Trump supporters like to pretend it's not so, for propaganda purposes).

Thus, Cruz could at least appeal to those people on that issue.

Can pro-Amnesty rubio?

What is it you expect to happen should your wishes come true and Rubio be the nominee? You think the 25% of the party very animated by amnesty/immigration, and the additional 25% partly animated by it, are going to just fall in line?

You guys keep saying Rubio will appeal to "more people" -- but you mean PEOPLE LIKE YOU. You are not looking at other people not like you, people for whom this is, in fact, a big deal.

I think you just expect them to knuckle under and know their place, sort of how lower-class soldiers are expected to follow the commands of upper-class officers.

It won't work. This is a revolutionary year and people are angry and determined to see that anger vindicated.

Vote for Rubio, you get Trump. Or Hillary. You're just not going to be able to ram a pro-amnesty candidate donw the throats of half the party.

>>>But I'd happily vote for Cruz in a general (or even in a primary, if Rubes were out or effectively finished). I think there are a lot of people who fall into my position, and it's got nothing to do with where I went to college.

well what it has to do with is your belief that Rubio appeals to "more people" -- all from the Comfortable Class, while studiously ignoring the fact that people outside of this class do not like him at all.

It seems you're sort of thinking their votes don't matter as much, or that they'll just follow their leaders.

They won't.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (dciA+)

334 All he has to do is reduce how much squirm he induces and his numbers will go up.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 18, 2016 05:51 PM (8PbKi)


Alternatively, same effect if they get less squeemish.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:52 PM (uURQL)

335 Cruz/Walker 2016

Skins on the wall.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 18, 2016 05:53 PM (kf2iZ)

336 *eyebrows rise as the arms to the PK meter stick in the fully upright position*

Egon, we've got a problem.

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 18, 2016 05:53 PM (flLTe)

337 Trump would have worked with Pelosi to Impeach GWB and he is leading the polls to be the GOP nominee.

Calgon take me away.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 18, 2016 05:53 PM (1g+wZ)

338 KAISICH 2016!--THE GUYS GET SHIRTS!

Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:53 PM (HqpV0)

339

I think people feel like they, and this country, are getting screwed and they are sick of it

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:53 PM (zOTsN)

340 The contract was for less than they paid me and the regular janitor. The replacements only spoke Spanish.

----------

Out of curiosity, how do you know they were illegal? What if they were simply willing to do it less than you were?

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (gmeXX)

341 You should. Losing the ability to believe how you wish and live that out is one of the most fundamental rights you have.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor


No, it's completely over the top.

Nobody is going to take away my Bible or not let me go to my Church. It's sort of like when Democrats say to blacks "the Republicans want to put you in chains!!!" because they want to drum up a certain voter base.

If you live in fear that President Hillary Clinton means you can't be a Christian anymore in America, I feel sorry for you.

Now making you put your gun in some federal registry? That's absolutely a possible reality.

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (74hKk)

342
I support the two candidates that are not gope: Trump and Cruz.



Cruz supporters should think hard about what VP he would choose.



Cruz/RINO is a very bad thing.

Posted by: eman at February 18, 2016 05:50 PM (mR7Es)

Cruz/RINO would be a very bad thing but, given Cruz's willingness to tell the GOPe were to step off, it's not a bad thing I really expect to come to fruition.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (NPofj)

343 Trump doesn't really tell us how he's going to solve
the problem
***
Presumably he observed how well Romney's 89 point plans went over.

If he was a solid conservative I wouldn't care...but since he isn't I am concerned.

The problem is that outside of Cruz the other choices are hard left anyway whether it be Hillary, Jeb, or Kaisch...

So at this point my choices are Cruz, then Trump, then third party...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (5LOno)

344 Cruz/Walker 2016

Skins on the wall.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 18, 2016 05:53 PM (kf2iZ)


oh my

Posted by: ThunderB at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (zOTsN)

345 Once again, thank you for elevating the discourse in the only way available to you.

Posted by: mega machines

If you're too obtuse to recognize the problem then perhaps you need to stop spanking your monkey so much...Posted by: mega machines

Please, for Christs sake, look in a mirror, I think your brain may have been hit by a train or something.

#Concerned

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (TJCSB)

346 If you live in fear that President Hillary Clinton means you can't be a Christian anymore in America, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: Kal

SUBPOENA ALL THE SERMONS!

Posted by: angry lesbian mayor of Houston at February 18, 2016 05:55 PM (zmW4B)

347 The case for Rubio's electability hangs on this farcical idea that he will attract college-educated liberals.

Nope, no he won't. Don't be insane.

Whether you like it or not, you go to the elections with the base you have. Part of the base is VERY pissed off by amnesty and globalism. No, they're not going to vote for Rubes just because he has a nice bashful smile and likes electronic dance music.

Rather than appeal to people who won't vote for you, maybe it's best to focus on those who could vote for you, under certain conditions.

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:55 PM (dciA+)

348 No, it's completely over the top.



Nobody is going to take away my Bible or not let me go to my Church.
It's sort of like when Democrats say to blacks "the Republicans want
to put you in chains!!!" because they want to drum up a certain voter
base.



If you live in fear that President Hillary Clinton means you can't be a Christian anymore in America, I feel sorry for you.



Now making you put your gun in some federal registry? That's absolutely a possible reality.



Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 05:54 PM (74hKk)

Kal you exhibit a complete lack of understanding of what religious liberty is.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 05:56 PM (NPofj)

349 307. That is absolute nonsense. I am a culturally conservative union member. Right to work laws have nothing to do with protecting worker rights. They are designed specifically to provide workers with all the benefits that the Union negotiates, including the right to due process, while exempting them from having to pay any type of dues. I live in Michigan, and prior to the passage of right to work I was a fee payer. This means that I only paid about half of my union dues because I gave nothing for political contributions. After right to work passed, the people who were fee payers were told that they either had to pay the full amount or drop out of the union because the bill specifically prohibited unions from allowing people to pay for service. It is perfectly fine for economic conservatives to argue that we should do away with all unions, but they should at least acknowledge that that is exactly what they are arguing for when they argue for right to work laws. Then they can explain how my deunionization is good for the economy. Personally, I would say that working in a union shop has been a godsend for me and for my family. It has allowed me to make a middle-class living and to support my wife and children. I am sorry that my children will like we live in America where union jobs don't exist. Oh well.

Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 05:56 PM (1o3cX)

350 If you live in fear that President Hillary Clinton means you can't be a Christian anymore in America, I feel sorry for you.


Baked any cakes lately?

Posted by: no good deed at February 18, 2016 05:56 PM (GgxVX)

351 "All he has to do is reduce how much squirm he induces and his numbers will go up."

Given that he's already whinging about media unfairness, how do you think he will fare once he's head-to-head with the actual Democrat nominee? Do you think the media will bait him? Do you think they are sitting on a dossier of gotcha material?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 18, 2016 05:57 PM (kf2iZ)

352 I really don't live in fear that I'm not going to get to worship the way I want or attend Church.

First they came for the wedding photographers, but c'mon, they just push a button for a few hours and call it work.

Then they ignored a state constitutional amendment, but everyone knows Californians are just a bunch of racist rednecks.

Then they came for Memory Pizza, but gay feelz are more important than tomatoed bread.

And then ...

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster browsing Bravely at February 18, 2016 05:57 PM (uURQL)

353 A little palette cleanser. Don't worry Timon, its not That video this time.

https://youtu.be/RrgbDGLl1SU

Posted by: Anna Puma at February 18, 2016 05:57 PM (flLTe)

354 Rather than appeal to people who won't vote for you, maybe it's best to focus on those who could vote for you, under certain conditions.

Posted by: ace

Don't think that will work. Sounds like a lot of work too.

Posted by: President Romney at February 18, 2016 05:57 PM (zmW4B)

355
Cruz/RINO is a very bad thing.

Posted by: eman

Cruz/RINO would be a very bad thing but, given Cruz's willingness to tell the GOPe were to step off, it's not a bad thing I really expect to come to fruition.
Posted by: redbanzai


The RINO part is the last chip the GOPe has to play. So, meh.

Nothing says we have to elect another G Herbie Walker Booosh after Cruz.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (AA6QE)

356 I feel like Rip Van Winkler, because I have no idea who"Mario" is. Did Cuomo switch parties? Is this a creative spelling of Marco?

Posted by: vera at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (9LANy)

357 Unless, God forbid, something happens to the president, the VP is pretty much a non entity. Almost none of them end up president, and most of the ones who did, did so a term or two later.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (39g3+)

358 Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys. And the vast majority of people who employ illegal immigrants as nannys, wouldn't just pay double to have an American citizen

Up until 20 years ago or so it was common to see American born nannies, gardeners, and the like. The notion that people wouldn't take those jobs without foreign competition is ...wrong.

Now, yes the upper middle class is reaping a major windfall in paying illegals significantly less. This is morally, and economically, wrong. You will see fewer double income couples if we stopped the easy flow of illegals, and the upper middle class would likely have less to spend on vacations and McMansions. Cry me a river...

This might also help bring the prices of real estate down...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (5LOno)

359 Next thing for Trump to glom onto.

The high mortality rate of middle-class whites because their livelihoods are being exported/imported with cheap labor.

Why has no one hit Rubes on his I-Squared bill to make college-educated Americans unemployed?

Posted by: Valiant at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (2bqlb)

360 My first choice was Bobby Jindal. He could discuss policy from the benefits of limited government to how different economic policies effect different parts of the economy. I really liked how he would have tackled healthcare. He was obviously also very comfortable talking about why its so necessary to have religious liberty.

Cruz is my second choice. Obviously a really smart guy, but you can tell by how talks about economic issues its not really in his roundhouse. I will however give him total ups for how he discussed the ethanol mandate, but it wasn't really an economics discussion. He made it more about limited government, which is his roundhouse, and used the removal of blendwall as the come back. Flip side, the most obvious choice to go about educating people on the benefits of limited government. And that is no small thing.

I will say that prior to trump coming out with his tax plan, i would have never voted for the man. His tax plan was not too shabby. My biggest issue with Trump, given all his statements, is that should a situation arise where he was president and he could support one of two policies on a certain issue and it just so happened that if the policy was incredibly bad but personally enriched him substantially, that given what he has said, he would have no qualms enacting that bad policy. It is quite easy for me to see democrats trying essentially to buy him off with policies that would substantially increase his personal wealth and he going along with it. I mean, he is a WINNER after all, no?

Posted by: JeffreyL at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (mXv3y)

361 Rather than appeal to people who won't vote for you, maybe it's best to focus on those who could vote for you, under certain conditions.

I'll take Things the GOP never learns for $800, Alex.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 05:59 PM (39g3+)

362 Democrat politicians fight for things that Democrats voters want.

Republican politicians fight against Republican voters.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 18, 2016 05:59 PM (B8JRQ)

363 ...Nobody is going to take away my Bible or not let me go to my Church...

Because you and/or your neighbors have guns and will use them to stop them. Otherwise it happens all over the world especially in a caliphate. Obama is importing an army to start a caliphate. Google muslim brotherhood.

As the song says don't-know-what-you-have-till-it's-gone.

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 05:59 PM (CRXed)

364 CRUZ 2016! YOU CAN'T FIGHT AGAINST DESTINY--THAT'S WHY IT'S DESTINY.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser in Berlin at February 18, 2016 05:59 PM (HqpV0)

365 Cruz/Walker 2016

Skins on the wall.


Trump/Walker 2016

Solid gold throne of skulls

Posted by: cool breeze at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (ckvus)

366 Consistent for whole months at a time.

"Build a wall" was actually part of US public policy well before I heard Donald Trump bring it up. So was "eliminate waste, fraud and abuse," "close Cabinet-level departments that don't make sense," and "Washington politicians are the worst."

Here's an example of where he isn't consistent: he won't tell you his foolproof strategy to defeat ISIS, because that would telegraph his intentions to the enemy (set aside that since saying that, he's stated several things about bombing them and taking their oil). But he's all about telling what he's gonna do to Ted Cruz if Cruz doesn't apologize -- thus enabling Cruz to call his bluff ("file the lawsuit, Donald").

You hear the parts of what Trump says that you like, and you either ignore, forget or discount the parts you don't. It's what all politicians and slick salesmen count on.

-----------------

1) Nobody has fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS.

2) You wanted to know his message is not consistent, I pointed out the message that people get.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (LXJ1e)

367 #ConcernedPosted by: Dr Spank

Listen, we get it. You have no problem with immigrants taking jobs away from American citizens and exporting our dollars to other countries. Stop with the ad hominem attacks and the trolling and try to sell your position.

If.You.Can.

Posted by: mega machines at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (fbovC)

368 It is perfectly fine for economic conservatives to argue that we should do away with all unions, but they should at least acknowledge that that is exactly what they are arguing for when they argue for right to work laws. Then they can explain how my deunionization is good for the economy.

-------------

Economic conservatives do not say we should do away with all unions. We say people shouldn't be forced to belong to unions or have to pay union dues. We say that companies should be free to hire non-union. Employees have a right to organize and collectively bargain. Employers have a right to ignore them and just hire un-organized people. And free from the interference of unions who wish to keep them from working.

The fact that states that are doing best economically are right to work states seems to provide some empiracal evidence that deunionization is good for the economy.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (gmeXX)

369 >>The case for Rubio's electability hangs on this farcical idea that he will attract college-educated liberals.

I don't know that I agree with that. Rubio never stops talking about his immigrant roots, his grandfather the reader in the Cuban cigar factory, his father the bartender.

He may not be the populist Trump is, nobody to the right of Bernie is, but he is not solely going after college educated liberals.

Plus, the fact that you absolutely hate Rubio might just be coloring your opinion just a tad.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (/tuJf)

370 If you live in fear that President Hillary Clinton means you can't be a Christian anymore in America, I feel sorry for you.
***
You are aware the government is currently implementing ruinous fines for publicly living as a Christian...right? And Hillary and the rest would like to make those fines criminal punishments instead...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (5LOno)

371
The case for Rubio's electability hangs on this farcical idea that he will attract college-educated liberals.



Nope, no he won't. Don't be insane.


Whether you like it or not, you go to the elections with the base
you have. Part of the base is VERY pissed off by amnesty and globalism.
No, they're not going to vote for Rubes just because he has a nice
bashful smile and likes electronic dance music.



Rather than appeal to people who won't vote for you, maybe it's best
to focus on those who could vote for you, under certain conditions.





Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 05:55 PM (dciA+)
Who says that? Rubio is routinely the candidate with the highest favs among the Republican base - that's one thing most polls agree with. And the case of Rubio electability is about his ability to poach swing voters in the middle plus getting back to at least Bush numbers with hispanics ( I think he'd do even better), not liberals.
In any case, I wouldn't mind to shed that wing of economically illiterate anti-capitalism nativsts for good, even if it means losing an election big and having a party realignment. What's the point of having two parties dominated by the exact same ideas on the issues that actually matter?

Most of those people were Democrats to begin with (or children of Democrats) and probably that's the party they belong with.


Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 06:01 PM (89I+i)

372 muslim brotherhood obama

I forgot obama, wishful thinking

Posted by: scorecard at February 18, 2016 06:02 PM (CRXed)

373 102 I agree with a lot of this, but part of the problem for anybody explaining Trump's support is that, like a good actor or athlete, a good politician makes it look easy.

Trump's a novice to politics, but is the absolute top of the line as a salesman.

So, if you watch him in action, he makes what he's doing look easy. It's what he's been doing since worked as a kid for his father. However, sales is a skill. It's a skill he's f'king awesome at. Yeah, even if you want to knock his business record, you simply can't deny he's an awesome salesman--which a big part of being a good politician.

When everybody sees him, and sees him doing what looks like nothing, they feel they have to dissect his supporters to explain his appeal. The neglect of his supporters is part of his success. But another large part is simply that he excels at a fundamental age-old aspect of politics, which a lot of other candidates suck at now.
Posted by: AD at February 18, 2016 05:12 PM (QWY55)


It really is true. You listen to one of Trump's rallies, you leave it fired up and ready to hit the voting booth tomorrow.

Basic stuff like saying "You are going to be so happy with my policies."....no other candidate is doing that.

Trump was born for sales, and by extension, for running for President.

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:02 PM (TZYqp)

374 Plus, the fact that you absolutely hate Rubio might just be coloring your opinion just a tad.
***
A knife in one's back does tend to focus one's anger doesn't it?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 06:02 PM (5LOno)

375 "358 Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys. And the vast majority of people who employ illegal immigrants as nannys, wouldn't just pay double to have an American citizen "

Not true. I know a ton of American women who've worked as nanny's.

Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2016 06:02 PM (PIMFj)

376 Cruz is at least anti-amnesty. There's no doubt about that (though Trump supporters like to pretend it's not so, for propaganda purposes).

Thus, Cruz could at least appeal to those people on that issue.


---------------

Yeah, he's all anti-amnesty, but all for legalization.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 06:03 PM (LXJ1e)

377 "358 Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys. And the vast majority of people who employ illegal immigrants as nannys, wouldn't just pay double to have an American citizen "

----------

Want more Americans to work as nanny's - eliminate the nanny tax.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 06:03 PM (gmeXX)

378 I think you just expect them to knuckle under and know their place, sort
of how lower-class soldiers are expected to follow the commands of
upper-class officers.


Almost like those of us who think immigration isn't the absolutely most important issue in the world are expected to knuckle under and know their place in front of the Trumpian mobs.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (lVU49)

379 68
Pitchers and Catchers

Reggie and Barry? Oh, wait. Baseball! Gotcha.

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (ocw+t)

380 340 because the guy that was in charge of hiring the janitors was a relative. I didn't mind, as I had another job, and went to college a month later.

But the guy had three straw bosses he used, and two of them hired workers for for the odd jobs that lasted usually one to five days. They were about half illegal and everyone knew that. No one cared.

Posted by: rd at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (v0YLX)

381 >>A knife in one's back does tend to focus one's anger doesn't it?

Let me know when you find a politician who doesn't shove a knife in your back every now and then.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (/tuJf)

382 Let me frame this another way:

Conservatives have lost the culture wars. White males are demonized. People that work with their hands or actually build stuff are sneered at. To cement their victory, the Lect wants open borders. They will not rest until the culture that built this country is silenced and marginalized. Cruz, Rubio and the rest do not acknowledge this. That is why their promises to "do something" about immigration rings hollow. I am a single issue voter on this, and I will settle for the possibility that I will be unhappy at some of the things President Trump will do. He's committed to securing the border and he understands that the country is at risk.

Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (+dh7Q)

383 nood

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:05 PM (dciA+)

384 the Trumpian mobs.



Brought to you by the abject failure of your GOP

Posted by: Mortimer at February 18, 2016 06:05 PM (lLKKQ)

385 but all for legalization.
Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 06:03 PM (LXJ1e)

So is Trump with his "we'll bring back the good ones", so what's your point?

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 18, 2016 06:06 PM (UnJ7w)

386 If you live in fear that President Hillary Clinton means you can't be a Christian anymore in America, I feel sorry for you.

You're not getting it.

Each small restriction of religious freedom means an increase in government controlling what people are allowed to believe and practice. If you think that somehow will never, ever affect you, you are simply not understanding the last five years, let alone the last twenty.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2016 06:06 PM (39g3+)

387 382 Let me frame this another way:

Conservatives have lost the culture wars. White males are demonized. People that work with their hands or actually build stuff are sneered at. To cement their victory, the Lect wants open borders. They will not rest until the culture that built this country is silenced and marginalized. Cruz, Rubio and the rest do not acknowledge this. That is why their promises to "do something" about immigration rings hollow. I am a single issue voter on this, and I will settle for the possibility that I will be unhappy at some of the things President Trump will do. He's committed to securing the border and he understands that the country is at risk.
Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (+dh7Q)


This.

And ignoring blue collar whites and their problems won't make them go away. It'll just make them not care to vote.

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:06 PM (TZYqp)

388 The case for Rubio's electability hangs on this farcical idea that he will attract college-educated liberals.

Nope, no he won't. Don't be insane.

Whether you like it or not, you go to the elections with the base you have. Part of the base is VERY pissed off by amnesty and globalism. No, they're not going to vote for Rubes just because he has a nice bashful smile and likes electronic dance music.

Rather than appeal to people who won't vote for you, maybe it's best to focus on those who could vote for you, under certain conditions.

Posted by: ace


Except that EVERY poll shows Rubio outperforming Ted Cruz. How do you explain that?

Cruz went to Harvard law and I presume Rubio went to state collegeand came from poverty.

Shouldn't Cruz be the "college" candidate? Harvard Law and his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Wow, such a man of the people.

Just watching Ted Cruz at any debate should somebody in the guy is like listening to nails on a chalkboard.

If Ted's the nominee, he'll lose and lose badly. And him pandering with the Religious Right crazy talk is only going to hurt him.

Posted by: Ghana at February 18, 2016 06:06 PM (nq/J2)

389 OBTW, nice piece Ace. Cruz had better hope he can make a quick transition, without the plasticy-faux empathy feel that creeps people out, before things get too far along.

Posted by: rebel flounder at February 18, 2016 06:07 PM (3dOE/)

390 Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys. And the vast majority of people who employ illegal immigrants as nannys, wouldn't just pay double to have an American citizen

Posted by: 18-1


The assumptions packed in this comment are nye impossible to unpack without spending an hour devoted to it.

Let's start with the first few words; "very few Americans want to work as nannys."

Your data is where, again?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 06:07 PM (AA6QE)

391 Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 05:56 PM (1o3cX)

Stickety, if your union was offering such outstanding service and negotiating for these awesome raises for their members, why did people drop out?

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:07 PM (lVU49)

392 Newsflash: very few Americans want to work as nannys.

Very few Americans want to work. They want a position.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 18, 2016 06:07 PM (FkBIv)

393 If you think that somehow will never, ever affect you, you are simply not understanding the last five years, let alone the last twenty.
***
I still remember when the gay left thought "gay marriage" was the punch line to a joke...and we are now criminalizing opposition to it...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 06:07 PM (5LOno)

394 Let's start with the first few words; "very few Americans want to work as nannys."

--------------

Once again, want to get more Americans hired as nanny's - abolish the nanny tax.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 06:08 PM (gmeXX)

395 Your data is where, again?
***
To be clear *I* do *not* believe Americans won't work as nannies...I was quoting someone else...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 06:08 PM (5LOno)

396 368. I think you are just repeating echo chamber arguments. You are saying that you're not anti union, but that no worker should be forced to join a union. The only way a union can work is if workers are required to join unions based on a majority vote. So, effectively, you are saying that you don't believe that unions should exist, which is fine. Like I said earlier, if you believe that the deunionization is economically advantageous, just argue for that. Don't close your argument in a b******* defense of right to work laws. Right to work laws requiring unions to provide their services for free, which will always, over the long term, bankrupt the Union. This s*** isn't difficult to understand. Make honest arguments.

Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 06:09 PM (1o3cX)

397
Conservatives have lost the culture wars. White
males are demonized. People that work with their hands or actually build
stuff are sneered at. To cement their victory, the Lect wants open
borders. They will not rest until the culture that built this country is
silenced and marginalized. Cruz, Rubio and the rest do not acknowledge
this. That is why their promises to "do something" about immigration
rings hollow. I am a single issue voter on this, and I will settle for
the possibility that I will be unhappy at some of the things President
Trump will do. He's committed to securing the border and he understands
that the country is at risk.

Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (+dh7Q)
Victimology and paranoia.
Trump is the unsuccessful whites version of #BlackLivesMatter, Al Sharpton, Obama et al.All unhappy demographic groups are alike, to paraphrase the Anna Karenina principle.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 06:09 PM (89I+i)

398 Except that EVERY poll shows Rubio outperforming Ted Cruz. How do you explain that?

Cruz went to Harvard law and I presume Rubio went to state collegeand came from poverty.

Shouldn't Cruz be the "college" candidate? Harvard Law and his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Wow, such a man of the people.

Just watching Ted Cruz at any debate should somebody in the guy is like listening to nails on a chalkboard.

If Ted's the nominee, he'll lose and lose badly. And him pandering with the Religious Right crazy talk is only going to hurt him.
Posted by: Ghana


Heh. It's like a 1990's fax letter.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 06:09 PM (AA6QE)

399 How does Cruz creep people out? Is it just your 'feelings' or do you have an example of creepy actions?

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at February 18, 2016 06:09 PM (1g+wZ)

400 Conservatives have lost the culture wars. White
males are demonized. People that work with their hands or actually build
stuff are sneered at. To cement their victory, the Lect wants open
borders. They will not rest until the culture that built this country is
silenced and marginalized. Cruz, Rubio and the rest do not acknowledge
this. That is why their promises to "do something" about immigration
rings hollow. I am a single issue voter on this, and I will settle for
the possibility that I will be unhappy at some of the things President
Trump will do. He's committed to securing the border and he understands
that the country is at risk.

Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (+dh7Q)

Can I ask why you frame this issue in racial terms?

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:10 PM (lVU49)

401 368. I think you are just repeating echo chamber arguments. You are saying that you're not anti union, but that no worker should be forced to join a union. The only way a union can work is if workers are required to join unions based on a majority vote. So, effectively, you are saying that you don't believe that unions should exist, which is fine. Like I said earlier, if you believe that the deunionization is economically advantageous, just argue for that. Don't close your argument in a b******* defense of right to work laws. Right to work laws requiring unions to provide their services for free, which will always, over the long term, bankrupt the Union. This s*** isn't difficult to understand. Make honest arguments.

-----------

I've made an honest argument. No employee should be forced to join a union or forced to pay a union due. If they do not, kick them out of the union. I don't care whether unions exist or not. You are saying they can only exist if people are forced to belong and pay to them. Your problem, not mine. Exist on your own merit.

Posted by: SH at February 18, 2016 06:11 PM (gmeXX)

402 Ace stomps himself AND willows himself.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at February 18, 2016 06:12 PM (Xo1Rt)

403 How does Cruz creep people out? Is it just your 'feelings' or do you have an example of creepy actions?
Posted by: Max Rockatansky


It's 100% fee-fees.

Even Midol Medved is reduced to claiming that Cruz is a big ole meany.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 18, 2016 06:13 PM (AA6QE)

404 400 Conservatives have lost the culture wars. White
males are demonized. People that work with their hands or actually build
stuff are sneered at. To cement their victory, the Lect wants open
borders. They will not rest until the culture that built this country is
silenced and marginalized. Cruz, Rubio and the rest do not acknowledge
this. That is why their promises to "do something" about immigration
rings hollow. I am a single issue voter on this, and I will settle for
the possibility that I will be unhappy at some of the things President
Trump will do. He's committed to securing the border and he understands
that the country is at risk.

Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (+dh7Q)



Can I ask why you frame this issue in racial terms?
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:10 PM (lVU49)


Can I ask why you shy away from racial concerns when blue collar whites are the ones who are concerned?

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:13 PM (TZYqp)

405 I'm reminded of the first time I became aware of the commenter Kal. They were really excited about a fracturing of the GOP so that maybe they could finally dump all those icky pro lifers.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 18, 2016 06:13 PM (bTbpM)

406
Up until 20 years ago or so it was common to see
American born nannies, gardeners, and the like. The notion that people
wouldn't take those jobs without foreign competition is ...wrong.



Now, yes the upper middle class is reaping a major windfall in
paying illegals significantly less. This is morally, and economically,
wrong. You will see fewer double income couples if we stopped the easy
flow of illegals, and the upper middle class would likely have less to
spend on vacations and McMansions. Cry me a river...



This might also help bring the prices of real estate down...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 18, 2016 05:58 PM (5LOno)

Yeah. And 40 years ago they'd gladly work as fruit pickers too. Or manufacturing cheap sneakers.
The problem is that nowadays, few Americans want to live with the standards of living those jobs imply. It has nothing to do with foreign competition, its' because those jobs don't pay enough to persuade Americans who would rather stay at home and/or live off welfare to work them.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 06:13 PM (89I+i)

407
Each small restriction of religious freedom means an increase in government controlling what people are allowed to believe and practice. If you think that somehow will never, ever affect you, you are simply not understanding the last five years, let alone the last twenty.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor



I get it, but most of this is because of gay marriage becoming legal.

No matter who's President, I don't see that dynamic changing.

If bakery owners not being allowed to say no to gay customers is your #1 priority, okay, my point was that this is not what keeps me up at night. It's an issue, but way down on the list

Everybody has different priorities, I don't live in fear that my Church will be shut down

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 06:14 PM (74hKk)

408 397
Conservatives have lost the culture wars. White
males are demonized. People that work with their hands or actually build
stuff are sneered at. To cement their victory, the Lect wants open
borders. They will not rest until the culture that built this country is
silenced and marginalized. Cruz, Rubio and the rest do not acknowledge
this. That is why their promises to "do something" about immigration
rings hollow. I am a single issue voter on this, and I will settle for
the possibility that I will be unhappy at some of the things President
Trump will do. He's committed to securing the border and he understands
that the country is at risk.

Posted by: Notsothoreau at February 18, 2016 06:04 PM (+dh7Q)
Victimology and paranoia.
Trump is the unsuccessful whites version of #BlackLivesMatter, Al Sharpton, Obama et al.All unhappy demographic groups are alike, to paraphrase the Anna Karenina principle.
Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 06:09 PM (89I+i)


So, neither party caring about white blue collars, and importing more individuals to take away their job opportunities.

Blue collar whites are still to blame, yes?


Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:14 PM (TZYqp)

409 Can I ask why you shy away from racial concerns when blue collar whites are the ones who are concerned?

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:13 PM (TZYqp)

I don't see why race is an issue at all when it comes to blue-collar anyone, and I am skeptical of those who would inject race into a discussion where it does not belong (see: the Al Sharpton Race Hustler Crew)

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:14 PM (lVU49)

410 409 Can I ask why you shy away from racial concerns when blue collar whites are the ones who are concerned?

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:13 PM (TZYqp)

I don't see why race is an issue at all when it comes to blue-collar anyone, and I am skeptical of those who would inject race into a discussion where it does not belong (see: the Al Sharpton Race Hustler Crew)

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:14 PM (lVU49)



America went from 90% white to 62% white since 1965. No effect on the culture at all, yes?

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:16 PM (TZYqp)

411 No, you didn't make an honest argument. In fact your reply is even more dishonest. No entity can exist on its own merits if the government makes a law saying that it must provide services for free. Every single person who supports right-to-work laws understands fully exactly what they are intended to do. The fact that you keep repeating the same delusional argument over and over again tells me that you don't care whether or not you are actually making an honest argument. You and I probably agree on 80% of the issues, but clearly it is impossible to agree on this. Have a good night.

Posted by: Stickety at February 18, 2016 06:16 PM (1o3cX)

412 What is your point? That blue-collar whites should be coddled but blue-collar Hispanics should be demonized?

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:17 PM (lVU49)

413
I don't understand this hatred for immigration and H1B's. I manage a team of "quants" and the fact of the matter is I can't find quality hires unless I go for sponsorship. It's not that I am not willing to pay a high wage , far from it. Rather, many of the STEM graduate programs are filled with foreign students. If I don't sponsor, I am looking a much smaller pool that frankly is not as talented.

Our economy has a huge knowledge based component that depends on human capital to drive innovation. Google, Facebook, Amazon, LinkedIn, Walmart, and others that depend on human capital in STEM fields to provide valuable services/products and good prices. Take away H1B's, and you will only drive up the price of labor which will result in higher prices to consumers without a change in the quality of the service/product. Why not hire them, give them a path to citizenship, and reap the benefits of it? You can be a luddite if you wish, but then you also can expect your and your grandkids standard of living to decrease.

We currently have 4.9% unemployment and frankly if you cannot find a job then it probably has more to do with your lack of skills than the job market.

I understand people are nervous, but protectionism and fear are not the solution. Freedom and entrepreneurship are the key to growing this economy. That's the message that Ronald Regan preached. It was the solution then and it is one today. The candidate that embodies that will get my vote. The candidate who argues for walls and tariffs will get my scorn and derision.

Posted by: Thucydides at February 18, 2016 06:18 PM (e7k67)

414 411

I love when liberals make the argument against "right to work" laws because of the free rider problem. Little late to the party

And FYI, every state that has right to work laws still have strong unions. It's just now voluntary

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 06:19 PM (74hKk)

415 412 What is your point? That blue-collar whites should be coddled but blue-collar Hispanics should be demonized?
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:17 PM (lVU49)


That the response to any ill-effect on a group of people, from both parties and almost all of the culture, is to ignore it entirely when said group is white. Particularly blue-collars.

That group is going to Trump because he's the only candidate who even pretends to care about their problems, even if it's only implicitly. No one else will do even that.

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:20 PM (TZYqp)

416
We currently have 4.9% unemployment and frankly if you cannot find a
job then it probably has more to do with your lack of skills than the
job market.

Thucydides at February 18, 2016 06:18 PM (e7k67)


Pretty much, but you'll be told that the statistics are fake and the "real unemployment rate" is like 20% because of the labour participation rate.

What the labor participation rate shows is that we have a very expansive welfare system. Those people out of the work force aren't even looking for jobs.

Posted by: Abali at February 18, 2016 06:21 PM (89I+i)

417 Trump at least makes an effort to pretend to care others don't.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 18, 2016 06:22 PM (LoRcb)

418 >>>What is your point? That blue-collar whites should be coddled but blue-collar Hispanics should be demonized?
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:17 PM (lVU49)

are you talking about Hispanic NON-CITIZENS? In which case, yes, I support Citizens over Non-Citizens; are you such a globalist that you think it's racist to favor citizens over non-citizens?

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:22 PM (dciA+)

419 The Cruz campaign should also get the message out that he is against the TPA and the TPP because it hurts the American worker. Hammer home that the agreement allows a significant increase in the H2B Visa program with major expansion into an "international worker" program. The H2B affects the blue collar worker pool more so than the H1B. The expanded H2B program has the unions against the agreement as well.

Idk. I guess the "gentry/CoC" Republicans figure if that can't get the laborers through immigration reform, they'll get the laborers through regulation reform. Either way the non-gentry will once again get screwed over.

Butt it will be different this time. We just have to keep the Democrat nominee out of office. Or DJT out of office. Or Cruz out of office. Or, you know, anyone that isn't a true Republican. If only we would just be shut up and listen...

Posted by: Usedtocould at February 18, 2016 06:23 PM (bYwuM)

420 Oh I think we all know by now that Trump has the alt-right racist vote all sewn up

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:23 PM (lVU49)

421 Trump doesn't really tell us how he's going to solve the problem.

Because it's unfixable.

Posted by: $19,212,724,305.49 at February 18, 2016 05:48 PM (lLKKQ)
---

I saw an item where Trump said he wouldn't take sides between Israel and the Palestinians. I was going to get mad, but then I read his reasoning: he doesn't think a deal between the two sides is necessarily doable, so he's reluctant to get involved.

That, at least, is honest. No guarantee in advance of success. That problem, he says, may be unfixable.

But that is not how he addresses other issues. It's nice to hear a promise that a problem will get fixed - but I'd like to know how he intends to go about it.

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 06:23 PM (eetvJ)

422 are you talking about Hispanic NON-CITIZENS? In
which case, yes, I support Citizens over Non-Citizens; are you such a
globalist that you think it's racist to favor citizens over
non-citizens?





Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:22 PM (dciA+)

No, Hispanic citizens.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:23 PM (lVU49)

423 incidentally hispanics favor bigger government with more benefits over smaller government with fewer by 75-20.

So even if Mario ties the Democrats on immigration (which he can't -- he has been forced to claim a bunch of things he doesn't believe as far as enforcement to keep viable with the GOP), how are you going to get past the next hurdle -- that they're politically opposed to you, even ignoring the amnesty issue?

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:24 PM (dciA+)

424 Did we talk about a Pope equating the state to scripture yet?
Sorry , just got here. Showed up lazy

Posted by: Clarney at February 18, 2016 06:24 PM (dgO4h)

425 Bet yer bottom dollar nobody rolls the Pope if he was Sicilian.

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at February 18, 2016 06:24 PM (ocw+t)

426 420 Oh I think we all know by now that Trump has the alt-right racist vote all sewn up
Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:23 PM (lVU49)


See what you did there?

Concerns of white people = "racist".

Of course you would, and so does most of the culture.

Neither party should expect to get votes from such a stance.

Posted by: Hawkins Aquinas (new name) at February 18, 2016 06:25 PM (TZYqp)

427 413

I don't understand this hatred for immigration and H1B's.


We currently have 4.9% unemployment and frankly if you cannot find a job then it probably has more to do with your lack of skills than the job market.




Posted by: Thucydides at February 18, 2016 06:18 PM (e7k67)


When you start out with a strawman, and end by citing government figures on unemployment, things will not go well for you.

What was it, something like 30 million unemployed or underemployed last year? How about sponsoring some homegrown talent or a technical program somewhere that trains future employees to have exactly the skills you are looking for.

It has nothing to do with hate for immigration or H1Bs. It has everything to do with helping your neighbors pick themselves back up by their bootstraps and off the entitlement rolls, first.

Posted by: rebel flounder at February 18, 2016 06:27 PM (3dOE/)

428 I don't demonize Hispanics. I don't say anything bad about them, which is because I don't feel anything bad about them.

However, they seem to have chosen these two big hills to die on:

1, that the US cannot exclude or expel any non-citizen who can post a flag in our country by any means (including by fraud),

2, that the US should be more like the rest of the world in terms of embracing social democratic welfare.

I disagree with them on both points, so I'm in no particular mood to overlook visa violations. What does it get me, exactly?

What does importing a million and a half new Democrat voters per year get me?

Does the ethic of anti-racism require that I vote contrary to my own political aspirations?

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:27 PM (dciA+)

429 A lot of these Trump sypporters are like Obama supporters in 2008. All the know is what they see on the TV news, which gives Trump a lot mote coverage that it has been giving everyone else.

It doesn't matter to me. I will nevervote for him. The lesser of two evils is supposed to be a figure of speech. If it is Trump v. either Clinton or Sanders it is literal as all three of them are evil. So I will vote for the rest of the ticket and make no choice in the Presidential race.

Posted by: NC Mountainl Girl at February 18, 2016 06:28 PM (filLB)

430 I know Hispanic voters favor Democrats in the majority. I don't support Hispandering from the GOP side. Quite frankly I think it is ugly and wrong on some level to divide people up into race-based voting blocs. Treat Hispanics like they are people, and not "the enemy". That would be a good first step.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:28 PM (lVU49)

431 are you talking about Hispanic NON-CITIZENS? In
which case, yes, I support Citizens over Non-Citizens; are you such a
globalist that you think it's racist to favor citizens over
non-citizens?





Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:22 PM (dciA+)
No, Hispanic citizens.


IOW, citizen vs. illegal?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 18, 2016 06:29 PM (DfQBn)

432 Why can no one drive home the point that its not immigration we're against, it's lawlessness? Although a hiatus on all till we square up our shit would not be bad.

Posted by: Clarney at February 18, 2016 06:31 PM (dgO4h)

433 See what you did there?



Concerns of white people = "racist".


Not what I said. You are injecting race into an issue where it doesn't belong. You're pulling the same crap as the Al Sharpton race hustlers, declare every problem in the black community to be the result of anti-black racism, and demand reparations in the form of guilt-based shakedowns. The concerns of "white people" are the concerns of all people. The concerns of "black people" are the concerns of all people.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:31 PM (lVU49)

434 "Does the ethic of anti-racism require that I vote contrary to my own political aspirations?"

Thank you, Ace.

Posted by: fly gal at February 18, 2016 06:31 PM (8TdcF)

435
Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 06:27 PM (dciA+)

Ace, I'm not accusing you specifically of demonizing Hispanics. But there is a lot of anti-Hispanic crap out there and the vast majority emanates from the right side. I don't favor pandering to Hispanics (I don't favor pandering to anyone based on racial characteristics), but I do think every individual ought to be treated with a minimum of respect, regardless of race.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:34 PM (lVU49)

436 Mrs Boomstick is even more conservative than I am. She says that Cruz loses women. And I say that as a (former Perry) Cruz supporter.

My response is that I'm tired of compromising and losing, and am willing to die on this hill. Let's call it half-"let it burn", half-"last act of defiance".

Posted by: boomstick at February 18, 2016 06:34 PM (cOnBF)

437 And no, I don't think anti-racism requires voting Democrat. In fact, conservatism is far more anti-racist than all of the liberal affirmative action crap.

Posted by: chemjeff - PuppyMonkeyBaby '16 at February 18, 2016 06:37 PM (lVU49)

438 There are conflicting streams in evangelicalism. If you listen to some of the TV evagelists you will learn there is a segment of evangelicals who think if they profess their faith in God and do nothing else, not only will they have eternal life, they will become as rich as Trump says he is in this world because God wants his beleivers to be rich. Some of them will even put the cart before the horse and opine if Trump wasn't a good man, he would not be rich. They can't be reasoned with. You ave to wait until they start to realize they did everything their mountebank preachers told them to do and they still aren't rich. But the preacher is.

On the other extreme there are those who focus on all the passages about eschewing the things of this world because His kingdom is not of this world. Those types tend to find Trump repulsive. But for some of them voting is seen as too worldly.

Posted by: NC Mountainl Girl at February 18, 2016 06:43 PM (filLB)

439 Posted by: Thucydides at February 18, 2016 06:18 PM (e7k67)


If it's "protectionist" for American workers to shape the government run immigration system to their benefit, then it's also "protectionist" for employers to do the same, if you want to remove government from the equation entirely and let a true free market flourish, great, but as long as government is in charge and picking winners and losers, any talk of protectionism is ludicrous unless applied to all.

Posted by: All Teh Meh at February 18, 2016 06:43 PM (AfES1)

440 1) Nobody has fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at February 18, 2016 06:00 PM (LXJ1e)


Point of information: Donald did say to Greta Van Sustren last May that he had a foolproof plan. But he wouldn't say what it is.

http://tinyurl.com/qbwy969

Posted by: stuiec at February 18, 2016 06:44 PM (eetvJ)

441 I am still waiting for the evidence that Trump is committed to anything other than Trump.

Posted by: NC Mountainl Girl at February 18, 2016 06:45 PM (filLB)

442 As much as I dislike Trump and his duplicity, trade war would be a refreshing change. The proper order is that the feds are impotent internally, and raise funds via imoort/export duties. We have allowed this to be totally inverted, with free trade and enslaved citizens (manifest by total internal surveillance/taxation).

And yes, I realize that the rest of Teh Donaldz logorrhea does not reverse the federal intrusion. But it's not bad that someone is talking about putting American citizens first in the priority list of the American government. Of course, he's full of crap and just pretending to care, but he is at least pretending.

Ace, you're totally right about Cruz needing to translate his message into Howyouwillbebetteroffese. CONTACT THE CAMPAIGN.

Posted by: boomstick at February 18, 2016 06:49 PM (cOnBF)

443 Why would anyone who prefers Cruz or Rubio prefer Kasich to Trump? Kasich is an even bigger traitor than Jeb. I'd honestly rather vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Johnny at February 18, 2016 07:02 PM (MZKpF)

444 Yeah. And 40 years ago they'd gladly work as fruit pickers too. Or manufacturing cheap sneakers.
The problem is that nowadays, few Americans want to live with the standards of living those jobs imply. It has nothing to do with foreign competition, its' because those jobs don't pay enough to persuade Americans who would rather stay at home and/or live off welfare to work them.
Posted by: Abali

i've got news for you...
many illegals stay at home and/or live off welfare too.

Posted by: concrete girl at February 18, 2016 07:13 PM (0KgAM)

445 well I'm late to this ... but I don't think the real world non-gentry conservatives need to be mollified or cajoled ... THEY are RIGHT. It is the gentry class conservatives that live in an ideological fantasy.

They are right here in the comments ... they run blogs ... they cling to their religion or philosophy, labeled as conservatism, not as a practiced way of life so much as an argumentative theory. It is like global warming versus real data and the fact we really aren't boiling, oceans are not rising. Ideology becomes religion ... then tribalism divides us. Politicians thrive on pandering to their base.

But Trump is reaching out to the practitioners ... not to the high priests of conservatism that thrive on intellectual concept, and yet have little real world experience. The bubble is bursting. The scientific method requires experiment that confirms the theory ... politicians live above that, yet now are facing realities beyond their control.

OK ... great subject ... that's just my beer rant. cheers

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 18, 2016 07:14 PM (5Gpe2)

446 I get it, but most of this is because of gay marriage becoming legal.



No matter who's President, I don't see that dynamic changing.



If bakery owners not being allowed to say no to gay customers is
your #1 priority, okay, my point was that this is not what keeps me up
at night. It's an issue, but way down on the list



Everybody has different priorities, I don't live in fear that my Church will be shut down

Posted by: Kal at February 18, 2016 06:14 PM (74hKk)


Again, Kal... you seem to not understand what religious liberty is nor what forces threaten it right now. You also seem to lack any understanding of the implications of those threats to all of our God given rights (or even an understanding that our rights are God given).

Our religious liberty is our God given (not state given) right to live our beliefs in all areas of our life. Religion is not merely where you go on Sunday mornings. It is in every action we take or don't take. It is in our autonomy to take or not take those actions without interference from the state. As I said, our right to conscience is given by God as are all of our inalienable rights. So if the state claims the right to make us violate our conscience (whether it be to bake a cake for a blasphemous ceremony or to finance the murder of innocent babies), they can claim the ability to violate all of our God given rights... including the right to self protection enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 07:31 PM (NPofj)

447
When you start out with a strawman, and end by citing government figures on unemployment, things will not go well for you.

What was it, something like 30 million unemployed or underemployed last year? How about sponsoring some homegrown talent or a technical program somewhere that trains future employees to have exactly the skills you are looking for.

It has nothing to do with hate for immigration or H1Bs. It has everything to do with helping your neighbors pick themselves back up by their bootstraps and off the entitlement rolls, first.


Posted by: rebel flounder at February 18, 2016 06:27 PM (3dOE/)

So we need more job training? Consider the following:
1) The Manpower Development Act of 1962
2)The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
3) The Comprehensive Employment And Training Act of 1973
4)Job Training and Partnership Act of 1982
5)Workforce Reinvestment Act of 1998
6)Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2013

That is 6 bills to fund and develop job training in the past 50 years. If you think yet another government program is needed to convince workers of the need to constantly develop their skills and talents, then I suggest you are really a Bernie Sanders supporter.

You can combine this with the vast amount of money the federal government will literally throw at you to attend a school (community college, trade school, university, etc..) to learn a new trade. We have been offering this largess to citizens for decades. If they are not going to take advantage of it to bootstrap themselves, then it's obvious nothing will and they only have themselves to blame.

And I for one, do not see the logic in refusing to hire a qualified foreigner to hire a native born person who lacks the skills and expects me to train them. What happened to the party of rugged individualism and accountability? What happened to letting a man reap the fruits of his labor?

Posted by: Thucydides at February 18, 2016 07:31 PM (6IqhF)

448 >>>Ace, I'm not accusing you specifically of demonizing Hispanics. But there is a lot of anti-Hispanic crap out there and the vast majority emanates from the right side. I don't favor pandering to Hispanics (I don't favor pandering to anyone based on racial characteristics), but I do think every individual ought to be treated with a minimum of respect, regardless of race.

agreed, but at the end of the day, "respect" cannot include the idea "And if you want us to have open borders to show we respect you, we'll just defer to you on that."

Posted by: ace at February 18, 2016 07:35 PM (dciA+)

449 Interesting analysis. You get one thing very wrong, though. You write: "No, their objection to guns is cultural and aesthetic.".

Its not that, its social. BEing a liberal, I like guns. I love to shoot them, I served in the army and even have an A-10 fetish from afar. But I do not like guns socially. I do not want them in my private sphere, as much as I can. Thats the main issue between open carry semiauto toting folks who come to a McDOnalds and me. I accept that we differ there. But dont make us al out to be pansywaists who get scared by guns in itself.

Posted by: Fnord73 at February 18, 2016 07:38 PM (ZgRru)

450 Mrs Boomstick is even more conservative than I am.
She says that Cruz loses women. And I say that as a (former Perry) Cruz
supporter.



My response is that I'm tired of compromising and losing, and am
willing to die on this hill. Let's call it half-"let it burn",
half-"last act of defiance".

Posted by: boomstick at February 18, 2016 06:34 PM (cOnBF)

Mrs. Boomstick is wrong. Anecdotally, a large number of the women on this site are Cruz supporters. Statistically, polls show Cruz have very robust support from women (who presumably aren't 'ettes).

Posted by: redbanzai at February 18, 2016 07:40 PM (NPofj)

451 What about us "pickers" in the Midwest that can't compete when slave labor in CA and Chile makes $3/bottle wine? Many would compete and innovate, but if our government makes a clear way for slave labor, fuhgettaboutit.

AND we have to subsidize the cheap labor by funding their health care, and other entitlements. Mexico government puts out a comic book on how to get here illegally, suck up entitlements, and send payroll profits back to subsidize the corrupt Mexican economy.

Of course it has everything to do with corrupt foreign governments and their people that are desperate to do anything to survive. Sell drugs, break our laws, work in the fields cheap, ... but collect America's free stuff along the way ... so Mexico can suck it in. The giant sucking sound you here, is commie governments with millions of desperate citizens they use for their own purposes. They will suck our advanced culture dry, to subsidize their slave culture, till they kill us off as well.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 18, 2016 07:41 PM (eUbDe)

452 TRUMP STRONK, TRUMP WIN

YOU GO TRUMP UNIVERSIRTY, YOU LEARN THINGS IN $30,000 THREE DAY SEMINAR

YOU LEARN STRONK

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Posted by: TRUMP UNIVERSIRTY GRADUATE at February 18, 2016 07:45 PM (74ZYB)

453 I am Groot.

Posted by: Groot at February 18, 2016 10:53 PM (1iM3x)

454 tl;dr well not the latter half.
We really are a ship of fools if we can't get any consensus upon anything.

Polling place: why are you here and who will you be voting for and why, if I may ask?

Obama phones, and SMOD all the way down.
Reprehensible. My vote is easily washed to NULL by some other or other nonsense.

Scalia/Ginsberg 2016

God rest his soul. What a brilliant man.

Posted by: micky at February 18, 2016 11:06 PM (LBYzV)

455 236 Mario?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 18, 2016 05:35 PM (FkBIv)

______

Ace's passive aggressive way to disrespect Rubio, to make up for his own short comings.

Posted by: petunia at February 19, 2016 12:01 AM (VoCyE)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0606 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0138 seconds, 464 records returned.
Page size 314 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat