1
That is all.
I asked The Donald if Z was in over his head: The Donald said he would build a wall to keep the Orcs out, sending those already here back to Isengard. Then he said he would let the good ones back in. Then he said that he didn't really mean that. Then he said he would make the wall taller and the Orcs would pay for it. Then he said he admired Saruman because he was tough with protesters.
He followed that up by saying that he would hire all the best people, just like he did with Trump University. I think he mentioned Wedge. I think he said he would put Pinella on the Supreme Court. He said he would do that because he would make good laws there.
I think he said that Vladimir Putin was a heck of a hitter for Montreal and the Angels. He described him as a "free swinger!" "Vlad could really crush the ball," he opined.
Then he promised to bomb the living **** out of the Rangers and take all that Texas oil. Then he said we shouldn't be involved over there. Then he said his daughter was pretty hot.
Then he said that he would solve the M's financial woes by not paying the salaries that had already been negotiated, thereby getting a better deal.
Then he said he knew all the best words to answer questions like this and that he would be a great manager because he had once watched a baseball game on TV.
Then his campaign manager tackled Shannon Drayer and said the iPad on which she was typing was likely a deadly weapon.
Then The Donald asked what the question was.
I asked Bernie the same question: He started his answer by saying, "Comrades Cano and Martin are having better than proletariat years, you know." After that he said, "The M's have an unnecessary amount of pitching wealth so I will take Karns and Walker and redistribute them to the Angels who are clearly deserving but have no pitching wealth of their own."
Then I tuned him out.
I would trade Martin back to Texas if it would mean an adult like Paul Ryan or Romney would get into the race.
Be afraid......
Keith
.
Implausibly, Rasmussen has The Donald up in the Hillary head-to-head by 42-37%. We all saw THAT one coming six months ago. Left or right be your leaning, tell me that you ain't gonna watch the Hillary-Donald debates?
Play nice,
Jeff
Comments
2
Speaking from a completely tone-deaf point of view:
Knowing that you're a Catholic and that your opposition to Trump runs deep: what does a NeverTrumper do with the issue of the next five Supreme Court justices? You can cope with Hillary appointing five more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, ensuring a radically left Supreme Court for our lifetimes, if you can defeat Trump?
For a devout Catholic, the Supreme Court must be the most important issue of all.
Or perhaps the #NeverTrump movement is really geared towards securing a different GOP nominee? If that did NOT occur, what would you do on election day?
That's the question that I find fascinating for NeverTrumpers. You'll have an intelligent response, so I'm looking forward to it.
3
As has been pointed out by many this season, it is not a given that a third party entrant will take only from conservatives or only from leftists. Nor is it a given that Trump will get votes only from normal Republican voters. Nor is it a given that a third party entrant wouldn't have broad enough appeal to wihn some states.
My goal is to find a good man to back as a third party entrant. There is a move afoot to draft Mitt Romney to run again as a sane, rational voice. There is also a movement to support libertarian Gary Johnson. And, of course, there is the possibility that a dispossessed blue dog Democrat like Jim Webb could suddenly appear. Any of whom I'd vote for before I voted for Trump.
Regarding the Supreme Court, I don't believe Trump is any more likely than HRC to nominate justices that defend the Constitution. He's never read the danged thing and doesn't even know that judges don't sign bills. More to the point, he's a wheeler dealer. He will turn each SCOTUS nomination into an opportunity to get some nationalist concession from resistent democrats. He will cut a deal with Chuck Schumer and nominate a "moderate" that he can spin as a conservative who will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, who will not defend religious liberty or gun rights. Who will be another Ginsburg or Roberts. And in return, they'll do something for him...like authorize a tariff we don't need or build his stupid, useless wall.
A pathological liar and con artist knows how to make deals...that is all he will do...and it will be no better for us than HRC. Except that if HRC nominates someone liberal, conservatives can galvanize in opposition. If Trump does? Conservatism dies.
I'm a principled, Catholic conservative. Any success Trump has comes at my expense. That is the bottom line.
4
HRC is basically the same as President Obama, except somewhat more abrasive. A Republican Congress can deal with HRC. It can't deal with Trump. When the public gets tired of Trump in 1.5 years or less, they will take it out on every Republican who ever supported him. Its much better for a political party to blame the USA's problems on the bad regime of the other party rather than fix the issue themselves. The 'Tank is right. The chances of a voter wishing he never checked the Trump box are much higher than the Mariners current playoffoff odds.
Many of the US issues are unsolveable. I have this theory that the majority of Trump supporters are angry with having their jobs replaced or threatened by robots, and he feeds them by stating that their problems are caused by Mexicans.
The Supreme Court picks do not signal the end of the United States as we know it. Is there anything left for a liberal Supreme Court to do? Last I checked, abortion was still mandated by the implied privacy clause of the Ninth Amendment, (That's a discussion in itself) and so is gay marriage. Was there some further issue the Court could decide that conservatives cared a lick about?*
*Besides allowing minors to undergo sex changes.
5
Hadn't thought of it that way - what is a liberal Supreme Court left to do?
My first question would be, How about classifying (some or all) Scriptures as hate speech? Would that be feasible? Mandating LBGT representation in churches?
Classifying a set of "insensitive" terms and ideas as hate speech - making it hard or impossible to argue the traditional side of many arguments?
Rulings that grease the skids for Islamic terrorism to gain a Euro-style foothold in the U.S.?
Rulings on immigration and citizenship that would assure a 70% voting base for the left?
Securing Roe v Wade forever when, in the face of a conservative court, this might be overturned? Related issues on sale of tissue and ethical problems on genetic engineering?
Ruling that the Second Amendment does not guarantee private ownership of guns?
Just noodling here. I find your paradigm most encouraging Mojician. Here is a simple honest question: does the Supreme Court bring any power to bear on the long-term question of whether the U.S.A. could be assimilated into a New World Order, with the U.S. subject to laws of a higher authority?
6
There is still PLENTY to lose at the SCOTUS level.
HRC's stance on guns means an HRC presidency could very well end the second amendment as a meaningful safeguard to civil liberties. The left's crusade against religious expression is also in play, as is the left's desire to reverse Citizen's United and end free political speech by anyone large enough to influence elections other than unions and the media, both of which are arms of the democratic party.
7
Scotus doesn't have any power to interpret anything other than US laws and the Constitution, and those don't say anything about the US being annexed into some other empire. But, With the line of reasoning started in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), that the Supreme Court is free to interpret individual rights retained by the people and not specifically provided for in the Constitution, there is no hard and fast restriction on what the Supreme Court can do. They can declare a person's inherent right to do whatever he wants. All of this, without anyone voting on it.
This is why I believe in sticking with original interpretations of the Constitution. Critics may be right in saying the founding father's views are irrelevant or outdated. However, that's not the point. It is more important that the Court is following a science of some kind and not just making things up to achieve what result they want to reach.
8
I think there's a lot to this. In American history there is a pronounced "rebound" effect where the people get a good look at Party X's President, get sick and tired of him, and then give the Presidency, Senate and House to the other party.
Easy to imagine Trump becoming the reductio ad absurdum of this effect.
.....
Ann Coulter would argue, if a line isn't drawn in the sand right now against the issue of poor immigrants given citizenship to vote Democrat, it's never going to matter anyway. (For example, Mitt Romney would have won election by a greater landslide than Reagan, if the demographic makeup of the U.S. had been the same). But I don't know if she's right.
9
... but, Trump is not ANY more likely than Clinton to nominate Constitutional justices? Not *any* more likely?
He's released a list of justices that feminist groups call "a woman's worst nightmare." The only way to synch that with *no* more likely than Clinton is to say that nothing Trump says matters ... in which case, none of the bad stuff he's said is reliable either. He's said nothing and is a complete mystery candidate. :- )
Earlier on, this was my #1 question about Trump - I didn't consider him likely to appoint Constitutional justices, though personally I'd rather have *anybody* appoint justices than Clinton. Then he made an unprecedented move that I would think we'd all agree was canny, to release a list.
You'd think that Clinton detractors would be able to give her credit for *some* things -- her experience, for example -- and that Trump detractors would be able to give him credit for some things too. The main thing I give him credit for is releasing his justices list.
That gives me a feel for it though Matt. Appreciate it.
10
1) No one on that list would ever ge approved by the Senate
2) Trump won't put any of those names forward because, when he realizes he can't get those names, he'll cut a deal for a lesser alternative.
3) Trump doesn't care enough about conservative principles (as in...he doesn't care AT ALL about conservative principles) to want to die on any hills that conservatives might choose to die on.
Nothing Trump says is remotely trustworthy or reliable. Period. And no...that doesn't make him a mystery candidate that we can all get behind because unknown is better than known and bad. It makes him a mystery candidate that we know is "chaotic/evil" (to use the D&D parliance - Doc, have you ever played?)...chaotic because he cares only about himself and his needs and thus cannot be tursted in any alliance and evil because he has no guiding moral compass. We know the latter because of the way he has lived his life. Please don't nuke the thread because I chose than phrasology though...I'm not saying he is necessarily evil in the biblical sense. You cannot and should not form an alliance with a chaotic/evil NPC in D&D, unless you enjoy getting crit-killed with a behind the back axe stroke when you're busy trying to talk to the mage you're trying to recruit to join your party.
11
I think I read you. Gives a better triangulation on the NeverTrump movement.
:: daps :: Let's leave it there, you with the last word.
.....
Easy on the Chaotic Evil territory, though. This thread will work better the more it sticks to issue specifics, and the less disgust/anger/disdain that permeates it. The other side is capable of calling us Chaotic Evil also, you realize.
Mojician can go into court and argue very important, passionate subjects while maintaining a respectful, restrained, fact-based tone.
12
This whole campaign has been hilariously myopic. Trump spells out his tactics in his books and people are still surprised by them. In Art of the Deal, he says (paraphrasing) "Tell them a lie three times and they will start to believe you. Then tell them what you really want". He's so transparent about it but people still don't get it. He's not going to build the Great Wall of Trump. He's not going to deport 12 million hispanics. He's not going to implement punative tariffs with China. He's lying out of his you-know-what in order to get the white blue-collar vote.
13
Yup. His stance on those issues is almost certainly going to change (though I do think he strenghthens the border and softens on deportation in the primary).
Personally, I don't care at all about his lying. Morality can be a weakness depending on the context. I think a lying, corrupt, winner who will do anything to have his way (or the country's) is what we need right now.
Will be voting for Trump. Hes already shown that he is ruthless and unapologetic about accomplishing his goals. I will happily take that over gauranteed incompetence.
14
Real winners win with conviction, with a sense of purpose beyond their own vanity. Real winners win by speaking truth to power, by arming themselves with a calling that goes to the core of a real problem and by solving it. Does Trump do any of that? I don't think so.
Trump isn't a winner...his entire life is a paean to failure and bluster...personal failings and business failings...lawsuits and conflicts...enemies and "friends" obtained with money, not with sincerity. The Donald Trump I know is nothing but a pile of money and a finely crafted PR persona. Has Trump solved any great problems? Has he gone to bat for anything or anyone but himself? Is there any reaosn whatsoever to believe he'll go to bat for America?
15
I don't disagree with any of that, but there is a pattern there. Hes willing to go to any length to get his way, will cut his losses when it makes business sense (very important IMO), and is extremely secure fueled by his massive ego.
Trump's flaws are very transparent and its refreshing for me. My base assumption for anyone running for president is that they are either scum and/or a puppet, so I just don't care about any of his personality faults, and only care about his effectiveness as president. The government is so incredibly incompetent that I think we need a guy in office that can shake up the infrastructure regardless of what needs to be done to accomplish that.
16
First off, I will never wear a Trump hat, button, or have a Trump sign in my yard. I have tried to pay attention to his words for the past 9 months, and I still truly do not know what he believes in. I know for sure that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, almost as well as Obama. I know he will do whatever it takes to win an argument or a deal... and he does not care what it takes to win. That said, and knowing every bit of what Matt and Taro are saying is true... I will still vote for him. To be clear, I am not a zealot. I am probably a lot more apathetic than Taro, and I have come to the rationalization that my one vote in King County will not change a thing. Furthermore, I could actually vote for Bernie if I thought he had a chance to win - using the same reasoning...so I might as well sit back and laugh, or I will start to cry.
In an earlier post above, it was stated that Trump would be no better than HRC. I see the other half of the glass... There is no way Trump can be worse than HRC. The Republicans have been handed the Congress the past several years, and they still can not keep Obama in check... so why would we think they would keep HRC in check. We know where Obama and HRC want to take us, and that is not working now - nor has it ever worked in the past. Thus change is needed. Moreover, if Trump wins, REGARDLESS who wins the Congress, the Congress will unite and stop Trump at most things. Yes, the Donald will work a few deals here and there, but for the most part Congress will impose their will.
One point I do want to make is a comment that Conservatism will die if Trump is elected. No way. Just as Rush Limbaugh has flourished through the years whether it was Bush, Clinton or Obama... conservatives will continue to fight the good fight and will continue to get ignored by many regardless who is President - be it HRC or the Donald.
My fear is that this current touchy feeley movement on both sides of the aisle grows. There is no way that there is 20% of America that believes in 60% of what Bernie is saying... just as there is no way that 40% of America has been able to decipher and believe what Trump is saying. Both of these groups are acting on emotion, and the hope of change for a better future. More importantly though, is that BOTH groups have given up on the basic politician - left or right, progressive or conservative, and especially RNC or DNC. These politicians, combined with an easily manipulated press have been lying, cheating stealing, corrupting and ultimately ruining this country for well over 70 years. They say one thing, and do the exact opposite once they are elected. The saying goes today, as it has been said for the past 50 years - you can't fight city hall. Well, that might be true now, but that was NOT what this country was founded on... and many people want that saying to change.
This change does not mean the same thing for the Bernie and Trump supporters today, and thus these groups have not united. However, if BOTH groups are underminded and slighted - like a third party candidate or the DNC platform giving little credence to the Bernie movement... these movements will continue to grow... and there is a good chance that they will join in the future. The worst part of that will be that these groups are already moving away from blaming just the politicians, and moving towards giving up on this American form of government. Then things get ugly.
At least now, Bernie and Trump have been able to keep most of the crazies under control, and focused on the goal. I am not sure the next Bernie or trump will be able to do the same.
17
Third party and Hillary wins. There is a near zero chance of it panning out any other way.
18
What are the odds that a Trump presidency ends in impeachment? Better than 50/50, I would say. He's not a guy that will respect any separation of powers. If people like the "imperial presidency" model of Bush Jr and Obama, they will love Trump.
19
They talk about the bombastic Trump and then the dealmaker Trump up in the 37th-floor boardroom. I think the last 40 years have left him with a natural inclination to grease politicians and get something done that most people can live with.
Still, not taking your bet on impeachment. :- )
You would see Hillary Clinton's odds of impeachment as being?
20
He's not that kind of deal-maker though. He's never looking for the win-win solution. He approaches every negotiation as a win-lose competition. He's a scortched earth negotiator, just like he's a scortched earth campaigner. If he can truck over someone, he always will - by hook or by crook. If that means playing footsie with the Gamibino crime family in order to guarantee no-strike over his contractr's non-union illegal Polish workers on the job site, then play footsie with the Gambino's he will. He'll take that exact same mentality into government. Iran-Contra or Hillary's email server will have notning on him.
21
I guess its possible, but I disagree. Those scandals hurt America. For all the BS he spews I legitmately believe that he will be a monster on America's side and not against.
Hes already ridiculously rich and I just don't see why he'd feel the need to go there at all. Its about ego and legacy at this point.
22
Trump's appeal to nationalism could well drive a major political realignment in the American system. Many countries are undergoing similar, nationalist revolutions that just might put an end to the Globalist future Bush and Obama so clearly wanted to usher in.
'Liberal' and 'Conservative,' or 'Right' and 'Left' are almost meaningless terms any more. Trump's a populist, he's a nationalist, and he's universally hated by everyone on either 'side' of the political establishment. He's basically political backlash personified.
Hard to see him getting derailed at this point. But even if he can't get anything done from the Oval Office, he'll have four years to influence the formation of whole new political paradigm. That, along with the Supreme Court, are really what's at stake in the coming presidency.
23
Seems the first 25% of Trump supporters and the first 25% of Sanders supporters were people who no longer cared much about issues as such. I like your term "political backlash personified."
24
I sent you a message with a couple of interesting leads on YouTubers whose content is jam-packed with great stuff. Amazing that YouTube has become an outlet for unheard voices to be heard in political discourse.
I still read every Camille Paglia Salon article, but I admittedly can't stand much of that site's other content. Thanks again for the hook-up :-)
25
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can you can trust The Donald
Or being lied about, don’t deal in his lies.
OK, I paraphrased a bit. But to tell you the truth, Doc, I'll trust Trump on the Supreme Court issue when I can trust him on every other issue he spouts about. Trust is earned, not given. But you know that....
I am a Republican because I believe, generally, in Republican/conservative values. Not on each and every issue, of course, but on the issues that set my political path....especially at the federal level. I have voted for plenty of state-wide Democrats. I've even lent my name to their campaigns. I've never voted for a Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama, although I've lost (or my vote has) to several of them.
I was an elected official who believed in straight-forwardness and being forthright. I staked my (small pond) reputation on it.
I can not abide nostrums; the spiels of Trump/Hillary/Sanders included.
Ergo, IMHO, I can never vote for Trump. In my view (often in error), whatever he says from now on is just the schtick of a carnival/TV barker. He's selling ShamWows or tickets to win the kewpie doll. I ain't buying.
Yet I can't stand Hillary. Interestingly, I think she has a (sort of) political soul, but no personal one. Which, if I think about it, is probably nearly opposite of The Donald. Not that I admire his personal soul, mind you.
But neither brings a particularly good recipe to the Executive Office.
BTW, One poll came out in the last couple of days that had Romney at 22% in a 3-way race.
He's a man I can trust, politically and personally. Ryan, too: More so, likely.
I've had city counselers that were Trumps and some that were Her-own-selfs. I preferred neither, cringing at both. 'Nuff said about that.
Right now? Give me a wise public servant, one with personal and political qualities that are easily admired.
So will go my vote.
Your mileage may vary.
Keith
26
heh, heh, heh
I think the Trump University thing sticks on that point. If I were Hillary I would go all-out on that front.
.....
Some of us were just talking IRL the other day ... never saw an election, at any level, for which the vote was so much about who we do NOT want to have control of the country.
What we wouldn't give for a real hero, a Founding Father who would turn down the kingship if it were offered.
28
Since Hillary won't debate Sanders in CA, I'll settle for the Sanders-Trump version on Faux, with Hillary on the outside looking in. She can debate the FBI, that right wing extremist group that is out to get her.
29
Did you come up with that one, or hear it somewhere? :- )
Pretty genius. I could see it working out well for Sanders, Trump and maybe under the circumstances Clinton would show up.
30
31
Since we're speculating, a couple questions for the learned conservative voices here...
Assume the following: Hillary wins but the GOP holds the Senate.
At that point:
--how long does the GOP continue to block consideration of a nominee and still claim to be waiting for 'the people to have a voice'? At what point does the boycott become self-defeating?
-- In this scenario, does the GOP Senate rush to judgement on Garland in order to prevent a 'worse' nominee from Hillary?
32
We are probably 9 weeks away or less from having the first confirmation hearing on Garland today.
No way the GOP will allow either Trump or HRC nominate the next SCOTUS... and the rhetoric from above in the post proves that.... and IF that very action actually happens and a SCOTUS is confirmed by Obama, it will be the deciding factor in the election. I do not know if Trump will then get a huge surge or let down, but the emotions will be at an all-time high that will continue to tear a part this nation.
33
Hillary vs. Trump means a quick move to consideration before the election.
I hadn't considered that.
34
Hahaha...I hadn't thought of that. Hilarious. Garland is pretty much right down the middle - leans slightly left on some social issues and slightly right on criminal justice issues. Pretty good chance he's a safer bet for the GOP than either a Trump or Hillary nominee.
36
What exactly do people fear the government can do?
There are 300 million guns in circultion, right?
37
that the government will subvert or neutralize the Founders' intent. Stop and re-read that if it didn't sink in the first time. It has nothing to do with *any* of the peripheral issues that get bandied about by the pro/anti lobbies, at least not in the minds of everyday Americans who support the 2nd Amendment (those peripherals being 'hunting,' 'home defense,' 'mental illness,' 'resisting tyranny,' etc..).
Everyday 2nd Amendment supporters think, as I think, that the Founders did a better than impressive job at crafting a framework of laws which did in fact build a far better world than anything which had preceded it. Some of the world's greatest philosophers all sat down and hammered out the foundation for the Free World as we know it, and the *second* item on their agenda was to provide for a well-armed militia. Not a well-armed army, and not a citizenry capable of defending its homes from invasion and/or engaging in hunting with firearms, but a well-armed militia.
The debate and, I think, often honest confusion about what exactly they meant by that only serves to strengthen the pro-2nd Amendment crowd's position, which could reasonably be summed up as: "We don't know, exactly, why they thought the 2nd Amendment was so important, which should make us wary about infringing on it in any way, shape, or form."
The Gun Control lobby, I think, fundamentally disregards this entire branch of the conversation--which, in my mind, is probably intentional on their part since it pretty clearly leads away from a more restrictive path.
So, in summary: I think people are reluctant to change or infringe on the 2nd simply because we, as a society (at least those of us who don't live in Ivory Towers or spend our lives studying human history and sociology) don't understand the motives well enough to qualify us to limit or modify it. The Founders thought it was important, and they were right about everything else, so let's not mess with gun ownership any more than we mess with free speech, freedom of/from religion, and every other core, Classical Liberal tenet upon which the country was founded.
My $0.02
38
Yeah, it was Captain Beefheart that gave us that poetry back in one of those golden ages, and politics still works that way.
The empowered (i.e. party leaders, aka, the chosen and those who could buy in or muscle their way into the game) will do what they can to keep their own seats warm ... no matter what it takes.
The polarity is always there, and voting against someone is not new. The further the pendulum swings one way, the further it swings back.
To presume you know what, or how, the founders thought is immaterial because the founders didn't have AK-47's and neither did the competition.
Besides, they didn't even have cell phones, the internet, and could actually maintain focus on a single thing for more than 28 seconds (although I'm being presumptive here).
The only way this country is going to upchuck and select a real hero is if everyone is all in for the whole pot and the power brokers will not allow this to happen. They can't take the chance, and the game is rigged.
So, unless one of the candidates is assassinated, or otherwise withdraws, you can bet your milk duds that there is an arrangement between both "sides", that will keep The Good Ship Lollipop afloat.
It's about power, love, and money ... and that's where you might consider putting yours.
My last third party ticket was a dual presidency of Willie Nelson and Muhammed Ali ... but, they were smart enough to not go into political positions. They found power, love, and money ... and got wasted besides.
You are all so serious ... while your pockets are being picked
Hey, the game has started.
zoom
.
DaddyO quipped,
I asked Hillary whether Z was in over his head or just a victim of bad luck. Her response was, "At this point, what DIFFERENCE does it make?!" - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/115800#comment-115800
.
Inspiring Mo' Dawg to pen an Adams-Jefferson class reply:
.
I asked the Donald