GOP's Loyalty Oaths Now Null And Void
Anderson Cooper just made some news, by asking all three Republican candidates for president whether they'd honor their previous pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee -- no matter who won. None of the three candidates now say they'll honor their loyalty pledge, although two of them tried to weasel out of even giving a straight answer. Personally, I can't decide which is more bizarre, the whole spectacle of a party loyalty oath in the first place, or the news that all three Republicans seem to have set a new world speed record by breaking a big campaign promise -- not after getting elected, and not while pivoting to the middle after becoming the nominee, but before the primary season is even over.
The oath, of course, was nothing more than a gimmick in the first place, directed at one candidate alone. All the Republican National Committee really wanted was a signature on the following: "I, Donald Trump, after my inevitable flame-out on the campaign trail, pledge not to attempt a third-party run and instead will support the eventual Republican nominee, which (of course) will not be me." That was deemed too personal, so they made all their candidates sign a generic pledge not to do so, to preserve the appearance of fairness.
Trump was (obviously) never supposed to win. Now that he's within reach of the nomination, the loyalty oath is coming back to bite the establishment Republicans in a big way. Now they've all pledged to remain loyal to Trump -- which was definitely not the way it was all supposed to work out.
Last night, this pledge was pronounced null and void, even though a few short weeks ago (in their last debate) all three candidates swore they'd stick to the pledge. Trump now says he doesn't consider himself bound by it any more, because the party has been "unfair" to him. He's got a point -- when was the last time we've seen a major party fervently doing everything they possibly can to deny their nomination to the guy who's getting the most votes? Similar things have happened before, but not in such blatant fashion, and not very recently. At least Trump honestly answered the question, clearly stating that he no longer was going to honor his pledge. Ted Cruz and John Kasich both tried to weasel out of providing a clear answer, hoping that the voters would connect the dots while still preserving some shred of deniability. In other words, both Cruz and Kasich gave typical politician-speak answers. But neither one of them said anything like: "I made a solemn oath to support the Republican presidential candidate, and I am not going to break my word." Not even close.
What both of them did instead was to essentially stick their fingers in their ears and mutter: "Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee," over and over again, in the hopes that repeating it enough times would somehow make it come true. Not too surprising, since this is the party that believes if the president just utters the words "radical Islamic terrorists" enough times, then they will all give up, go home, and stop fighting. Magical phrases are big in the GOP, it seems.
No matter how hard they wish, though, Donald Trump might well become the Republican nominee later this year. What's interesting about this development is that Cruz and Kasich might have opened the flood gates for the rest of the party to start taking a real stand against Trump. Cruz and Kasich (and Rubio, when he was still running) weren't the only ones to completely undercut all their badmouthing of Trump with: "...but, of course, I'll still support him if he's the GOP nominee." Lots of other prominent Republicans have gotten caught in this trap as well (most recently, Paul Ryan). They all provide a list of why Trump is so horrible and why he's unthinkable as president, and then they humbly end by stating they'll support him anyway, should he win the party's nomination.
But now that Cruz and Kasich have led the way, it'll be interesting to see whether other Republicans get on board or not. Because this might be the last chance they've got to stop Trump. And it's a lot easier to make the case against Trump when you are free to say: "I will not support Trump even if he becomes my party's nominee." If prominent members of Congress and the Republican establishment publicly rip up the concept of loyalty oaths by fully denouncing Trump, it might just be persuasive enough that the remaining primary voters deny Trump the nomination. It probably won't work (nothing else has, yet), but it'd have a better chance with strong denunciations of Trump, complete with clear refusals to back him even if he wins the nomination.
The Republicans are in a serious pickle, that much is for certain. I only see three probable outcomes, at this point. Trump could get the nomination and a large portion of Republican Party officials could do their best to ignore or disavow Trump, and even run campaigns (for the Senate and the House) which directly state that they don't support Trump. After Trump's inevitable defeat (this line of thinking goes), they could gather the scraps of the Republican Party, lick their wounds, and work hard to insure that their party is never hijacked in such a fashion ever again.
The second possible scenario is that a large portion of the Republican Party form their own third party, either by building one anew or trying to hijack one of the third parties which already exist (and already have ballot access in most states). They would choose some hapless candidate as a sacrificial lamb, who would go on to lose in a big way, but whose loss would also deny Trump the Oval Office. This would be a temporary hiatus from the Republican Party, and as in the first scenario, they'd all return to the GOP afterwards and try to figure out just what the heck happened to their party.
The third scenario starts the same as the second, but instead of eventually returning to the Republican Party after launching a third-party bid, the former Republicans would decide that building a permanent alternative is the way to go. Either the Republican Party would collapse afterwards (after Trump exits the stage, leaving it a hollowed-out shell), or the new third party would never gain traction and eventually all the Republicans would drift back to the wreckage of the Republican Party, post-Trump.
Of course, all three of these scenarios start with basic assumptions which might prove to be wrong. Trump might actually win not only the nomination but also the presidency. Or, perhaps, the Machiavellian plotting to deny Trump the GOP nomination will actually work, leaving Trump to be the one to explore a third-party option. It's impossible to say what the odds are right now for any of these, really.
But the whimpering death of the loyalty oaths certainly expands the range of possibilities, especially for Republican senators (and other GOP candidates) who are already very nervous about running with Donald Trump at the top of their ticket. If Cruz and Kasich can break their pledge (one that was physically signed, on paper), then all the other Republicans will be free to follow suit, since they never even had to swear such an explicit loyalty oath to the party in the first place. We will all see the spectacle of Republicans running for office while also running as hard as they can against their own party's presidential nominee. That would lead to some interesting campaign ads, that's for sure.
But Democrats shouldn't get too gleeful at watching Republicans squirm, though. No matter what happens, the Republicans aren't going to go away. Even if "the Republican Party" disappears from the American political landscape, the members of that party won't. They may rename themselves, or they may spend one election cycle in complete and utter disarray, but that doesn't equate to a future of one-party Democratic rule or anything. Whatever they wind up calling themselves, conservatives will still be with us, in other words.
But the time for pretense is over, for Republicans. Instead of having to say with a straight face "I will support Donald Trump as nominee" while deep down inside knowing it isn't true, Republicans are now able to state their intentions without making news for breaking a silly pledge. Now the anti-Trump or "NeverTrump" movement can operate right out in the open. They can fully make the argument against Trump and not be accused by other Republicans of being insufficiently loyal to the party. It's really the only chance they've got left to stop Trump, so it will be interesting to see how many of them (and which ones) decide to use this tactic. It's probably too late, but at least now the anti-Trump faction can be a lot more unashamed and honest about their true beliefs. With the loyalty oath now pronounced null and void by all three candidates left in the race (which, ignoring the weasel words, is what just happened), the rest of the Republicans are now free to tell the public what they really think of Donald Trump.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris: did you see the articles today referencing the woman who was running PR for some Trump-related Super Pac -- saying Trump initially intended to run as the publicity stunt we all have assumed, hoping to get 12% and come in second, but it's all gone to his head?http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/the_donald_is_his_own_biggest_enemy_former_super_pac_director_exposes_donald_trumps_bulls_artistry/
Today's Anecdote: late-30's white woman, casually dressed, sitting on a stool in her driveway washing her car. How does she feel about the election season so far?
She wrinkled her forehead, laughed and thought for a bit, then said: "disappointed". I nodded encouragingly.
"All those republicans with their convention stuff, they're a bunch of...a bunch of kooks! The fact that there's a lot of people who support him is scary. I'm a Democrat. I got to see Bernie at Baldwin Wallace and I totally support everything he stands for. That Donald Trump seriously thinks he should be president is screwy."
I asked her what it was like to see Bernie and she said it was wonderful. "If Hillary wins, I'll vote for her but I really like Bernie. If Trump wins we're going to be in a world of hurt."
She went on to say she'd seen some news footage of Trump supporters in Youngstown. She said they had signs about what would happen (bad) if Trump was beaten at the convention. One had "college" misspelled. She said she thinks the people supporting Trump are "ignorant".
Apparently, SC GOP requires the loyalty oath for candidates to get on the primary ballot. Is that the only state?
Last night, Rachel Maddow reported that the DC Madam's lawyer is strongly implying that one of the remaining presidential candidates was one of her clients and he says he'll release that phone list within two weeks. He's under court order not to release it. It seems unlikely to be Hillary or Trump. I'm going to guess it's the holier-than-thou fundy crackpot. Pervy!
My take: this guy is hoping to cash out with some foreign scandal rag
We accept the two party political system because of the cost and logistical challenge of running a campaign in this large (geographically and population), very rich country we live in. Only the two political parties have the machinery and links to the big money to deliver a viable candidate in November.
However it seems that it is possible to run a virus in these massive machines - Trump has proven that the Republican machine can be hacked, and to a lesser extent Bernie has shown the same thing for the Democratic machine.
Who is responsible for this strain of virus? Obama of course ;)
Seriously, Obama ran a campaign against a candidate deemed 'inevitable' in 2008 and won by building momentum outside of the machine using the Internet, then taking over the machine. I think the Republican machine is easier to hack than the Democratic machine due to the soft entry points (conspiracy web sites, the talking loons on AM, Fox News, etc.), but there are several reasons for the Democrats to be far less smug about the 'Republicans reaping what they have sown' than they should be:
1. Obama has already shown in 2008 that the Democratic machine can be hacked, albeit by somewhat of an insider/outsider
2. There are rising left wing media outlets (salon, huffpo, kos) that are playing inside the lines at the moment but could go rogue at any point
3. The traditional money sources, especially unions, are losing influence to populist small donation internet based money machines (Hillary constantly fills my inbox with 'shock horror' emails about Bernie out raising her in this month or that state)
4. Bernie has shown that there is a significant group of Democrats who want the party to be further to the left than the Reagan/Clinton (Bill) center right pivot point we now take as granted is the commanding heights needed to win in any given November election, and with the Republican Party galloping into the land of the fascists, some leftwards drift can be contemplated and still be close enough to this pivot point to be the only acceptable alternative to the hoi polloi
5. Citizens United could also produce a left wing elite that can swamp the machine with money (the money machine can be swamped in two ways now, small Internet donations and big money)
I'm by far not the first person to point this out, but the era of two party politics looks on ever more shaky ground.
Personally, I can't decide which is more bizarre, the whole spectacle of a party loyalty oath in the first place,
Oh come on, CW.. Every time someone asks Bernie or Clinton if they will support the other candidate if they win, THAT is requesting a Party loyalty oath..
Trump was (obviously) never supposed to win. Now that he's within reach of the nomination, the loyalty oath is coming back to bite the establishment Republicans in a big way. Now they've all pledged to remain loyal to Trump -- which was definitely not the way it was all supposed to work out.
I know, right!!
Hilarious!!!! :D
Michale
Neil,
Regarding #6....
I would appreciate you not doing my job for me! :D
heh
Michale
Michale:
You're a self-hating liberal.
Joan Albert, 70, of the city's Somerton section, was blunt when asked why she switched after years as a Democrat.
"I don't like Hillary Clinton," she said. "I'd rather vote for Donald Trump."
Her husband, Marvin Albert, also 70, said he and his wife appreciate Trump's freewheeling speeches, drawn to what they see as his unusually candid nature.
"He tells you what's on his mind," Marvin Albert said. "He's not always right with what he says, but at least he speaks with what he feels."
Diana Albano, a 77-year-old retiree from South Philadelphia, has also been persuaded to support the outspoken businessman, even though she had been a registered Democrat who voted for President Obama.
"I like that [Trump] says what he believes," Albano said, admitting that she finds his bluster off-putting sometimes. "I'm not crazy about his approach, but I just like his honesty."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160329_At_least_180K_join_GOP_as_Pa__primary_nears.html
Ya'all worried yet?? :D
Michale
Delegate deficiency:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/donald_trump_s_polling_collapse_in_wisconsin.html
Yea yea yea...
And Donald Trump is going to flame out within a month of announcing his candidacy..
And Donald Trump won't even win one state..
And Donald Trump calling Carly ugly is going to end his campaign...
And Donald Trump's battle with Megyn Kelley will end the Trump campaign...
yada, yada, yada, yada...
so on and so on and so forth...
blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa....
Rinse and repeat ad naseuem... :D
Michale
Today's Anecdote: late-30's white woman, casually dressed, sitting on a stool in her driveway washing her car. How does she feel about the election season so far?
She went on to say she'd seen some news footage of Trump supporters in Youngstown. She said they had signs about what would happen (bad) if Trump was beaten at the convention. One had "college" misspelled. She said she thinks the people supporting Trump are "ignorant".
I wonder if this woman realizes how bigoted her remark is...
My guess is... No...
Michale
"The Republicans are in a serious pickle..."
This phrase left me momentarily distracted (cue harp music)...it IS hard to find a seriously great pickle...good crunch, heavy on the garlic, light on the dill. So far as I can determine, NYC is the only source for such a pickle...pulled from a vat, not from a jar.
I threw out 3 Republican scenarios myself way back in the comments to column "GOP Elites Chose Poison Over Getting Shot"
CW's first Scenario is a somewhat more optimistic version of my own Scenario 3, "Roll over and hibernate,which is probably equivalent to roll over and die."
CW's 2nd Scenario is similar to my own 2nd Scenario, a large segment of the Republican Party Establishment bolts and runs some hapless Third Party candidate, with the intention of somehow reclaiming and re-branding the GOP post their near certain 2016 loss.
CW's 3rd Scenario is essentially overlapping some less likely elements of my own scenarios 2 and 3.
I still see a need for another scenario, my own Scenario 1, an establishment counter coup in the form of either a very well coordinated ganging up of bickering wannabees in the remaining primaries (just barely credible) or a floor fight based upon obscure party rules.
There is increasing talk about a floor fight...there is even a prediction market for a floor fight. The market even sees it as something like a 50:50 proposition. I don't put a great deal of faith in this prediction, it's a brand new, highly volatile market and there is only about 12 grand US dollars (about 10 Quatloos) worth of trade to date. I would watch that space though. An Establishment Coup is undeniably risky, but it offers the highest to the The Bold. "Bold" doesn't seem to gibe with the current GOP establishment types, but then again, you don't hand out RSVPs to a counter revolution inside The Palace.
neilm - 6
Good post, as usual.
I'm not sure the two party system is exactly accepted, I look at it as an unintended consequence of the US Constitution which makes 3rd parties non-viable in the long term.
I also don't think this season's drama is caused by money, there has been a lot of money changing pockets for a long time. It used to move by hand, than by post, now it's electrons. The big change right now is modern computer targeted niche marketing. Targeted marketing itself isn't new, but it was done with file cards and lots of people. Now it's computers, programmers and internet media. Politics has never been more agile in major nation. Smart munitions vs iron bombs.
Michale wrote:
"Ya'all worried yet?? :D"
Not in the least. :-D For lots of reasons. First, the over 70 demographic votes mostly Republican anyway. Two, like the article said, there are many reasons why voters could be switching parties. Including Democrats wanting either to be able to vote against Trump, or for Trump, thinking he would be the weaker candidate in November and therefore easier to defeat. No Presidential candidate recently has been able to with without getting a large percentage of the Latino vote. I just don't see that happening with Trump. There just aren't enough, percentage wise, straight angry blue collar white men, to rely on to win an election anymore. Trump continues to shoot himself in the foot with various segments of the electorate that he desperately needs in order to be able to win in November, like his recent comment on punishing women for having abortions, and then having to backtrack. I could go on with a lot more, but I think you get the point.
@JM,
demographically you're probably right, but to be honest i'd still prefer a different republican nominee. trump's attitude toward violence, suppression of free speech and scapegoating of minorities are scary on a pretty primal level. the republic will survive regardless of whether or not he becomes president, and might even be stronger as a result, but the worst case scenarios are just way more dramatic. Even with all the regressive policy it entails, i'd rather have a 70% chance of president cruz over even a 30% chance of president trump.
JL
Why has the bar for American political leadership been set so low?
One more thing. Does Trump really want the job? Or does he just want to run for what amounts to the fun of it? Another season of The Apprentice?
Trump has the red states...but the red states aren't 270 EV. At some point he has to pivot in order to pick up some purple, or maybe even pick up the odd blue. I don't see how he can do this with just old angry white folk. It's not like it hasn't been tried..Romney, McCain. Trump is a deal maker, so he knows this. He has to attract some voters closer to the middle..but his language and antics are just getting louder and more loopy. The loud and loopy market is saturated. Punish the women who get abortions is a pitch to a saturated base.
To be fair, there has been a bit of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" going on. Trump is resorting to walk backs, which don't excite his core support at all! The core wants unadulterated, unmodulated Donald. The term "narcissist" was tossed about by Republican types until recently, adopted at you-know-who. Now it never passes Republican lips.
Trump is basically a free range guy. I don't think he want's to be cooped up in the WH. He has private security, he has many mansions. He already has a jet. He already owns both pro and con positions on every known policy issue.
Maybe a third party run would be even more fun, with even less risk of actually having to do substantive work starting next January. Is Trump thinking of jumping the GOP ship o' state. Is he jumping a shark?
JL,
trump's attitude toward violence, suppression of free speech and scapegoating of minorities are scary on a pretty primal level
And you see nothing contradictory regarding your statements and the violence from the Left, the suppression of free speech from the Left and the scapegoating of fellow Americans who have committed NO CRIMES from the Left??
At least the "minorities" that Trump is "scapegoating" are criminals and murders and rapists and terrorists..
Michale
Why has the bar for American political leadership been set so low?
What did you expect after the incompetence of Obama and the Democrats???
Michale
Liz-17
Like nagging problems with the US economy, it largely results from a lack of genuine competition in the market place (brands and ideas).
Well then, TS, that begs another question ... with a less than easy answer which must necessarily be non-brief ...
Why is there such a paucity of serious and intelligent people in the realm of politics for whom serious and intelligent debate on the critical challenges of the day is second in importance only to finding workable solutions to improve the life of the nation and the lives of its people?
And you see nothing contradictory regarding your statements and the violence from the Left, the suppression of free speech from the Left and the scapegoating of fellow Americans who have committed NO CRIMES from the Left??
"And you find nothing contradictory in a society that outlaws suicide but practices capital punishment"
-Tuvok, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, Death Wish
Michale
Odd thing on the Betfair exchange today. Trump just had his biggest crash ever (he's had two big ones before - he recovered from the first, but not from the second)..and with high trading volume. His implied probability of winning the White House has dropped from 20% to 10% in a matter of days..and most of that happened this morning (US time zone). Was it something he said? He says a lot of things, so that's hard to parse. New polls? Haven't seen any. There is more talk of a contested GOP nomination, in part because of a rather tiny Betfair market on that event, so maybe it's that.
Liz-22
I can't think of any government with an abundance of
"serious and intelligent people in the realm of politics for whom serious and intelligent debate on the critical challenges of the day is second in importance only to finding workable solutions to improve the life of the nation and the lives of its people."
In the US system, you must gain seniority to wield the power to change things. That takes multiple elections. House o' Reps districts in the US are heavily gerrymandered...to take and hold one you need to tow the party line. They are engineered to be safe for a particular party. The Senate is not gerrymandered at the state level, but it is highly non-representative at the Federal Level. Low population states hold enormous power in the Senate. The Senate is even more seniority influenced than the House o' Reps. It makes plenty of sense for a small state to groom and keep Senators as close to forever as possible...what else have they got at the Federal Level of power? This is all deeply woven into the fabric of US government by our Constitution. In modern times at least, the Constitution can be interpreted, but cannot be formally amended (in any practical sense).
That's what I mean by lack of competition. It's still a pretty brief, but the ability to make sense of this gets exponentially longer to type.
Your second question about serious and intelligent people is partially addressed by the above structure. There are plenty of intelligent and serious people that enter the system, but them system encourages them to not act in that way....with the occasional exception.
Like I say, your complaint seems a common one in western style democracies. The US is just bigger, more influential and has a lot of nukes. Our crazies are more worrisome. Delving into greater detail is going to get wordy - M levels of wordy. I choose not to go there. I'm a big fan of comment koans at this level of complexity. :)
At least the "minorities" that Trump is "scapegoating" are criminals and murders and rapists and terrorists..
and muslims and mexicans and liberals and conservatives and protesters and disabled reporters and victims of violence by his own campaign staff, and of course hillary clinton.
JL
Me -24
Maybe it's this:
“Our candidate is mental,” Coulter said. “Do you realize our candidate is mental? It’s like constantly having to bail out your sixteen-year-old son from prison.”
When Coulter calls somebody crazy, people say "get the net"
Cruz ahead of Trump by 10 in Wisconsin just hit the NYT. A victory by Cruz makes convention deadlock more likely. That might explain it. A different flavor of Crazy - Tea Party Delight.
TS,
Like I say, your complaint seems a common one in western style democracies. The US is just bigger, more influential and has a lot of nukes. Our crazies are more worrisome. Delving into greater detail is going to get wordy - M levels of wordy. I choose not to go there. I'm a big fan of comment koans at this level of complexity. :)
That wasn't so much a complaint on my part as it was an observation based on previous comments in this and other recent threads on the Republican primary process and an attempt to get at some of the reasons why there isn't a better selection of candidates to choose from, especially considering we are discussing here the United States of America, otherwise known as the world's only superpower whose leader is universally known as the leader of the free world.
You do touch on a few important points as to why there is a paucity of excellence in political leadership and I am sure we could both expand on that score. Now, what needs to be done to rectify it or do you believe that there is nothing that can be done about it?
As for delving into greater detail being a place you choose not to go, that is a real shame but one that is also entrenched in place across the ADD media culture and dysfunctional political culture in your country. I sure do hope that can change, and in fairly short order.
TS,
Me -24
Maybe it's this:
“Our candidate is mental,” Coulter said. “Do you realize our candidate is mental? It’s like constantly having to bail out your sixteen-year-old son from prison.”
When Coulter calls somebody crazy, people say "get the net"
The fact that you turn to Coulter to make your case???
Well, "crazy" doesn't even BEGIN to describe it!!! :D
Michale
TS,
“Our candidate is mental,” Coulter said."
She hasn't jumped ship. I think Ann Coulter the PC cop simply decided that she wanted some attention and his abortion remarks were an unpopular and easy target.
I think the betting markets are reacting to Wisconsin. They remember Utah and see Drumpf's 1,237 dream slipping away.
@TS
I still see a need for another scenario, my own Scenario 1, an establishment counter coup in the form of either a very well coordinated ganging up of bickering wannabees in the remaining primaries (just barely credible) or a floor fight based upon obscure party rules.
I think you might have hit the nail on the head. There will be an attitude of complete abandon in the Republican Party by the time the convention comes around such that they will be willing to 'go nuclear' on Trump regardless of the November consequences, simply to maintain the concept of a Republican Party. Trump has been the beneficiary of the Republican establishment's raison d'etre to date (i.e. anybody but Hillary) but I think you are correct in your conclusion that 'anybody but Trump' will eclipse 'anybody but Hillary' from a purely existential viewpoint.
We are living in interesting times. Scary (God help us if Cruz or Trump get into the Whitehouse - and this isn't a pro-democratic viewpoint, I'd even be delighted with a Romney Whitehouse instead), but interesting. Cue Chinese curse reference ;)
DecayedOldBritishLiberal [9] -
First off, welcome to the site!
Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post your comments instantly (and we do apologize for the delay in posting your first comment).
Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.
Again, welcome to the site. And try not to let Michale get under your skin...
:-)
-CW
Be good, Michale.
Paula [1]-
Thank you for the link - I read the article and I'm now more than ever hoping that Trump gets the Republican nomination.
But I'm very much concerned that the GOP establishment's dirty tricks department is working overtime to try to stop him.
I've been looking at all the various ways they might try to do this. The most obvious is to get on the Cruz train for only as long as it takes to deny Trump the 1237 delegates he needs to win outright on the first round of voting, thereby triggering a contested convention.
I was hoping the alleged scandal around Cruz would damage his image but that didn't happen. If anything, it seems to be attracting more Republican voters to his side in Wisconsin. I hope the WI Trump rallies turn that around.
JFC [4]-
I hope the lawyer does release the info if it implicates Cruz.
DOBL,
You're a self-hating liberal.
Hay now!! Let's not be saying things we can't take back!!! :D
"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Michale
TS,
When Coulter calls somebody crazy, people say "get the net"
Like I said.. If you have to rely on COULTER to make your argument...
Something IS crazy.. :D
Michale
I think the betting markets are reacting to Wisconsin. They remember Utah and see Drumpf's 1,237 dream slipping away.
Another day, another "Trump Is Toast" prediction..
Yaawnnn....
Michale
Be good, Michale.
Always... :D
Michale
@Michale:
You're nearly right. I was a self-hating liberal till about five years ago. I'm 65, so that was most of my life. I'm now much happier in my own skin. I'm now a confident liberal.
Again, welcome to the site. And try not to let Michale get under your skin...
Awwwww, now why would ya want to go and WARN 'em!??
I like my prey.... surprised.. :D
Michale
nypoet22 wrote: Even with all the regressive policy it entails, i'd rather have a 70% chance of president cruz over even a 30% chance of president trump.
Really? Cruz is far more dangerous to our country than Trump is. Their politics are not that different, Trump is just far more blunt in his delivery of the hatred. What makes Cruz more of a threat is that he would have the backing of the GOP establishment to help push his agenda.
I am still not completely convinced that Trump is actually running or if this isn't just the biggest performance of his life. Trump could pull a 180 and call out America for getting behind a candidate as vile as he has been and try to convince the masses that we must do better with who we elect to govern us. He would be seen as a hero. While I do not actually believe that is his plan, I hope that his ego might finally realize that he isn't going to be remembered positively by history the direction he is headed presently and might want to do something to change that!
@listen,
strongly disagree. being commander in chief means controlling the most powerful military force in the history of the world. for all the damage cruz might do legislatively or via a scotus appointment, i trust him not to nuke anybody off the cuff. with trump, who the hell knows what he'll order if the mood strikes him...
JL
with trump, who the hell knows what he'll order if the mood strikes him...
And THAT's just what we want our enemies to think!!!
:D
Michale
nypoet22 wrote:
for all the damage cruz might do legislatively or via a scotus appointment, i trust him not to nuke anybody off the cuff. with trump, who the hell knows what he'll order if the mood strikes him...
Cruz is just as willing to "carpet bomb into oblivion" any nation where Muslims might live, Plus, if he believes that he was ordained by God to rule America, then he might also see a nuke as the perfect way to cause the Second Coming to begin. Most politicians just pander to the religious fringe for votes and do not actually drink the Kool-aid; Cruz is actually the one mixing the Kool-aid! As to which one is most likely to cause us to go to war, again, I think Cruz is far more dangerous. Trump might have a temper tantrum and cause it, but then again he might not. Cruz seems destined to get us into a holy battle.
Michale wrote: And THAT's just what we want our enemies to think!!!
:D
That made me chuckle -- only because I picture you saying it while stroking a white cat and looking like Dr. Evil from Austin Powers!
That made me chuckle -- only because I picture you saying it while
heh
Anyone who can drag in a Movie reference is OK by me! :D
Michale