Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump drops out of CPAC appearance

Trump drops out of CPAC appearance

Feeling the heat, or demonstrating that he doesn’t need conservatives?

One has to wonder if the increasing conservative attacks are the reason why Donald Trump dropped out of his CPAC appearance at the last minute.

At least the Twitter chatter I’ve seen the past day from people at the conference was pretty hostile. And let’s face it, Ted Cruz took him to the cleaners last night at the debate on conservative issues.

Perhaps Trump didn’t want the optics of a large crowd (I’ve been in that ballroom, it’s Yuge) booing him. Or maybe he’s just proving that he’s bigger than the conservative movement, and doesn’t need it.

(added) Politico reports:

The Trump campaign released a statement to reporters announcing that it would be in “Witchita, Kanasas [sic] for a major rally on Saturday prior to Caucus.”

“He will also be speaking at the Kansas Caucus and then departing for Orlando, Florida and a crowd of approximately 20,000 people or more,” the campaign said. “Because of this, he will not be able to speak at CPAC as he has done for many consecutive years.”

“Mr. Trump would like to thank [American Conservative Union Chairman] Matt Schlapp and all of the executives at CPAC and looks forward to returning to next year, hopefully as President of the United States,” the statement continued.

https://twitter.com/GalloVOA/status/705802556925042688

https://twitter.com/rothschildmd/status/705817661221896192

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Feeling the heat, or demonstrating that he doesn’t need conservatives?” This is a bit too high-brow of a question. I’m afraid America wants to know about the detail of his anatomy.

He’ll be the best Democrat elected president we’ve ever had.

    Estragon in reply to Andy. | March 4, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Mr. Jefferson, sir, Mr. Jefferson – who did not bother to include the Presidency on the epitaph he wrote for his own headstone.

    So, maybe 2nd best, which still wouldn’t say much.

Yep. Trump definitely won the debate, the only story that Mr. Jacobson can come up with is Trump pulling out of CPAC. Like I said in the live thread, if Trump had lost we would have seen all these new stories about the debate.

    Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    #SuckTrump

      practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      Mr. Cruz pledged to back the Republican nominee. When asked on another thread you were non-responsive.

      So once again, will you back Mr. Trump if he is the Republican nominee?

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 1:05 pm

      That’s a lie, and you’re a liar.

      Ragspierre | March 4, 2016 at 9:10 am

      I’ve found that whenever someone feels the need to modify “conservative” with something like “practical”, they are not the first.

      #NEVERTrump. Ever.

        practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 1:11 pm

        Now you hurl invectives. How sad for you.

        And you still won’t answer the question. As far as I am concerned, you are worthy of nothing but opprobrium.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 1:20 pm

        When you lie, and I demonstrate your lie, that is NOT “invective”. That’s a statement of fact.

        IF you’re such an idiot that “#NEVERTrump. Ever” is not a clear answer to your question, there’s no helping you.

        I don’t give a flying fluck for your opinion.

        Just so’s you know…

          practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 2:28 pm

          The only thing that comes across to me is a bully, a nasty reprobate. A flamer not in control of his emotions.

          Frankly, you are unworthy of further comment. Go kick your dog or smack your wife.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 2:34 pm

          You came here to pick a fight with me.

          You got one.

          Puuuuurrrr lil’ poopsy.

          The only thing that comes across to me is a bully, a nasty reprobate. A flamer not in control of his emotions.

          You just described Donald Trump to a T.

          practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 5:11 pm

          Pick a fight against someone almost as battle hardened as Mitt Romney? Never.

          You come across as a truculent bully, incapable of effective argument. Methinks you sleep hanging upside down.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 6:00 pm

          …which is just all ad hominem bullshit.

          You lied. You asserted I have “failed to respond” or WTF ever. Like I have any duty to respond you your ass? But you had your response, liar.

          I gave you an answer. Direct. On point.

          You lied about me giving you an answer. You hadn’t the wit to read “#NEVERTrump. Ever.”

          THEN you came back and blew snot-bubbles about how I’d gnawed on your head and shoulders, and was SUCH a meanie!

          Tough shit, pooky. Count on it when you come after me. I’ll do it every time.

          Have a good weekend!

        HandyGandy in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 1:25 pm

        You mean like “compassionate conservative”?

          Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 1:37 pm

          Exactly. As I’ve said for years.

          Where were you, BUCKWHEAT…???

          When you modify “conservative” you are in the process of walking away from its meaning and merit.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 1:34 pm

        I’m learning a lot.

        I’m learning that a real “conservative” is someone who responds with ad hominems, sees sexual innuendo everywhere, calls Trump supporters homoerotic, makes other ugly comments, tries to shut down people who disagree with insults, uses name calling and believes themselves to be clever, joins idiot twitter trends started by liberals such as #NeverTrump, looks at threads with all of the above and complains that “Trumpites” (or whatever) are creating the problem, and so forth.

        And — while it was a herculean task to accomplish given how strongly positive for years my feelings have been for Cruz — his most vociferous supporters on LI now also have succeeded in associating all of the above with my thoughts of Ted Cruz himself. “Nasty”, to quote someone else.

        Brilliant strategy! Bravissimo! if that’s what you were hoping to accomplish.

        So who are you all really supporting for president?

          One of your fellow Trumpkins called one of the female LI bloggers a “whore” here the other day — and we won’t even get into some of the invective hurled by your Lightbringer himself. Wallowing in the sewer and flinging feces at others while shrieking #NewTone! #NewTone! at your political opponents look a bit precious, TBH.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 3:06 pm

          So that means that the “anti-Trumpkins” are justified in being ugly to any other poster who disagrees with them, regardless. (That’s herd mentality behavior.) It’s too bad, as someone else said, that “Kasich is a Democrat”.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 3:22 pm

          “So that means that the “anti-Trumpkins” are justified in being ugly to any other poster who disagrees with them, regardless.”

          Well, no.

          Some T-rump supporters here are not combative. Of course, that doesn’t mean that BS is met with indulgence. It SHOULD be met with stiff resistance, which you may easily be too “sensitive” to find acceptable, since you tend to support T-rumpian BS.

          Still, I often don’t bother addressing your nonsense, like your “Cruz can’t win” didactic statements, because they’re so vacant. And others can see that without any opposition from me.

          OTOH, there are a few of your fellow T-rump cultists (and you know you are one) that just naturally have to be stomped on.

          Mark in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm

          What you should have learned, six months ago, is that Trump (and his followers) created the toxic and ugly environment you bemoan. His unprecedented resort to 6th grade name-calling and nasty goading was of the type that get’s folks banned at Internet forums.

          If you wish to mock folks as “pathological and violent” (Carson), “a pussy” (Cruz), ‘really ugly’ (Fiorina), ‘sweating to much’ (Rubio), or losers (etc)…you’re going to eventually get pushback.

          The archtype is Nelson in the Simpsons…the pri*k that “ha ha” over others pain and tries bully and dominate politer folk.

          Here’s the thing – anyone who keeps trying to play polite baseball when their is a football thug on the field is a fool. You have to play football as well…or you are just an ad hom target.

          Trump brought this on himself; its a little late for “Nelson” to play the victim.

        practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 7:22 pm

        Ad-hominem???? Are you feeling hurt? As you sling Rubio’s hash tag bear in mind Rubio’s utter lack of clarity.:

        Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, putative leader of the #NeverTrump ‘movement’, says it actually only applies to the primaries. In other words, by Marco Rubio’s definition, being #NeverTrump is actually indistinguishable from simply running against Trump in the primaries.

          You’re making quite a mark for yourself here.

          You’ve been identified as a liar.

          You pick fights.

          You whine because you got punched out (metaphorically).

          You link to Talking Points Mau-maus, which is one step from Kos.

          Just FYI, I believe you’ll find that I first said I would not vote for ANY Collectivist many weeks ago. T-rump and any Deemocrat fall into that ambit. #NEVERTrump is simply short-hand for the same statement. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Rubio, no matter how you try to mis-characterize it.

          You’ll also find that I stated I won’t vote for Rubio several weeks back, due to his “we should let long-term illegals stay” statement. Along with his position on the whole “rape culture law” thingy, he’s disqualified himself.

    inspectorudy in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    If you call that buffoonery displayed by Trump last night winning then you need to get a new brain. I have seen ten year olds give a better performance than Trump. He all but came right out and said EVERY THING is negotiable. Does he have any principles at all?

      tom swift in reply to inspectorudy. | March 4, 2016 at 1:54 pm

      He all but came right out and said EVERY THING is negotiable.

      In fact, it is. The office the candidates are campaigning for is “president”, not “tyrant” or “king”.

      The difference between presidents who are remembered as successful and those who aren’t is not that the successful ones were imperious monsters who ruled by decree, it is that they negotiated successfully, gaining most of what they wanted while giving up little in return.

        impeach obama in reply to tom swift. | March 4, 2016 at 2:35 pm

        ok – he’s a great negotiator – how much will he take for his jewish grandkids, from the mullahs ?

        Trump the Taqiyyah con artist strikes again.

        ‘everything is negotiable, especially my morality”

    CandyLand, Rush stated, about 20 min. ago, that he thought Ted Cruz won the debate “hands down.”

    So now you have a third party and erudite source who awarded Ted Cruz the debate. Rush also said that if you wanted entertainment them Trump and Rubio were your guys.

    Try again. You may just reach gum drop mountain.

    Estragon in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Blither on! I suppose you have tickets for the big rally next week in Nuremberg – gonna be HYUGE!

Maybe Trump is just scared that bering close to Ted Boogerman today will make him sick.

I didn’t watch, but from what I’ve read, Der Donald opened his veins and bled out on stage last night WRT the Sessions immigration plan he’s PRETENDED to adopt…or at least read.

Along with his simple madness about having the military violate laws on his command.

The guy is a Collectivist fraud.

    HandyGandy in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    I didn’t watch, but from what I’ve read, I gonna spew carp without actually knowing anything.

    Typical Ragspierre.

      Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 1:02 pm

      I know a few things.

      I know what T-rump said, though I didn’t see it in real time.

      I know he’s a stinking, lying Collectivist fraud.

      I know you suck on him like your mommy’s titties.

      I know you’re a little PC-obsessed idiot.

        tphillip in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm

        > I know a few things.

        Maybe. Maybe not.

        > I know what T-rump said, though I didn’t see it in real time.

        Not according to what you wrote. You said “from what I read”. So unless you read transcripts of the whole thing (Very Doubtful) you read what other people wrote about what Trump said.

        So by your own admission you don’t know what Trump said.

        > I know he’s a stinking, lying Collectivist fraud.

        As opposed to the other stinking, lying Collectivist frauds. Got it.

        > I know you suck on him like your mommy’s titties.

        And I know that like Harry Reid, you’re an alleged paedophile.

        Isn’t hurling insults and charges fun? Everyone can do it!

        > I know you’re a little PC-obsessed idiot.

        Sounds familiar.

The good Trumpkins of Witchita [sic] Kanasas [sic] will be well pleased anyway.

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/705806538611531776

#MakeAmericaLiterateAgain

doesn’t need to get booed by an organization that has been a dismal failure for the last decade …

Donald Douglas | March 4, 2016 at 1:07 pm

Smart move by Trump. CPAC’s a meat-market and wild jungle of unhinged right-wingers. He’d have been mercilessly attacked, and indeed it’s a much better use of his time to hit the hustings.

    tom swift in reply to Donald Douglas. | March 4, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    As we’ve seen repeatedly, Trump’s tactics are nearly flawless. When his foes have prepared a battlefield, complete with tank traps, mines, planted protesters, and TV crews just panting for a “gotcha”, he defeats them by sidestepping the whole thing. Sun Tzu himself couldn’t have done it more elegantly.

      “There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball.”

      All these “flawless” tactics, and he still can’t get above 35% of primary voters. He was at 34% on Supertuesday. Trump’s supporters think he will fight for them? He will not, but he will bully, and there is a difference.

    Smart move by Trump. CPAC’s a meat-market and wild jungle of unhinged right-wingers.

    So why did he agree to go in the first place?

Why go in front of a openly hostile crowd? A group that is doing everything to sabotage his run? A crowd that is sending out errand boys to stab him in the back at every turn?

Right now it is safer to be Hillary or Bernie than Trump in a crowd of Republican elites and their henchmen.

    If he can’t handle “openly hostile” conservatives, how is he going to go against Hillary? How will he deal with our enemies abroad?

      forksdad in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | March 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm

      Because your own side isn’t supposed to stick the knife in and twist it. Because you’re supposed to support your own. Because a traitor or unreliable ally is more dangerous than any enemy.

      It’s not a question if he can ‘handle’ the CPAC. He’s handled everyone even when it’s a dogpile from all sides and the refs. He can handle Hillary and the Chinese.

      The only question is if he wants to give them a platform or any chance to hamstring him again. Let them twist, scream shout and be as deranged as the people who put up Photoshopped pictures and smear headlines. It only makes his point that they were never on the side of the American people and only on their own side. The elites’ side. They hate that they don’t control him and are scared that the tactics they’ve used to bend everyone over for the last couple decades will not work on him.

      They are making themselves as irrelevant as the Whigs. They could have lead the charge, gotten behind the TEA party. Driven the democrats into the pages of history where they belong. Instead the elites and the GOPe hit him harder than they ever did Hillary or any other Dem for that matter.

      The fact is Trump is taking charge of their party and they hate it and are scared. It was their playground now someone’s come who they can’t bully and they will burn it down and let the other side of the evil/stupid coin win rather than lose their place.

        Because your own side isn’t supposed to stick the knife in and twist it. Because you’re supposed to support your own.

        Has anyone bothered to fill Donald Trump in on this new “rule”?

        Ben “Child Molester” Carson and Carly “Ugly Face” Fiorina were just wondering.

          forksdad in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 9:35 pm

          I missed where Trump begged those two for money and support got both then Trump stabbed them in the back. If you can’t see the difference in what is going on then it is willful on your part.

          The party and individual politicians have for years begged him when they wanted his money. Good enough to take his money but not good enough to support. Hell, don’t support him but don’t hammer him harder than you ever hammered Obama.

          If Romney had fought half as hard against the Dems maybe he’d be president.

        “Because your own side isn’t supposed to stick the knife in and twist it. ”
        He’s yet to prove to me that he’s on my side.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to forksdad. | March 5, 2016 at 12:42 am

        Conservatives are not ‘his side’ and never were. It’s always been his choice to state his support for baby-killing, property-taking, pie-in-the-sky lies about walls and to contribute to Hillary’s presidential campaign 4 times, in addition to all the horrifically anti-American, anti-constitutionalist politicians he’s financially supported. THEY are HIS side, not us.

Trump is finally becoming over-exposed and needs to have a lot less to say for awhile. His opponents need to keep him engaged and talking. Much like HRC, he needs to limit his exposure to keep from damaging his own brand. The difference between them is that Hillary is politically savvy enough to recognize her need for minders while Trump believes himself to be an omnipotent Oz. I can’t imagine there’s anybody advising Donald Trump to filter his unprincipled, undisciplined self.

Trump’s opponents have finally begun to play the game by Trump’s rules, so it’s about time for Trump to morph his game yet again. Don’t be surprised if he starts to disengage citing a lack of civility by non-Trump Nation.

My, my. Mitt says: Mitt Romney: I Cannot Vote for for Donald Trump… Would Like to See Brokered Convention (VIDEO) (on Neil Cavuto’s show)… yet when he was vying for the Presidency everyone had to suck it up and vote for him for the good of the party…. what utter rot and nauseating self-righteousness! Oh, and I have not decided who I will vote for, but I loathe, loathe two-faced people.

In lieu of CPAC Trumph will hold another event for Veterans so that he can rake in more money and then live off the proceeds, the asstoot business man that he is.

Join the Trumph campaign today and become a Goldmember like the Donald.

Whiskey Bravo | March 4, 2016 at 1:49 pm

I am sick and tired of this Republican Primary. I’m fed up with all of it. The childishness, the name calling, the lack of substance in the debates (media and Republican Party’s fault together). I have gotten to the point that I can’t stand the Republican Party almost as much as I can’t stand the Democrats–and it’s getting harder to see the difference between the two as each day passes.

At first, I only wanted to see Trump in the race to FORCE the Republicans to deal with topics they would rather sweep under the table. Now, I can’t stand the sight of him in any capacity. He’s disgraceful and lacks any dignity the Office of the President requires. He has no plan for this country and of the things he says he’s going to do when he’s President, a significant portion he can’t do because of the Constitution.

The people backing Trump at this point are as blind to the facts as those who backed Obama. You cannot discount a candidate’s past actions and imagine that they are going to be different when “they become the President.” They won’t.

But there is one thing that few talk about and yet is perhaps the most important thing. With a House and Senate in line with a Republican President, now is the time to try to swing the courts back into a constitutional balance. Yet based upon what Trump has been saying repeatedly about his thoughts on the Judiciary and who should be nominated, the country is going to lose the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court appointments to, at best, mushy justices and living Constitution judges. And THAT is worse than anything else we’re going to suffer–because it is a long-term issue.

Trump may do enough good to salve the consciences of those who voted for him to beat Hillary (if he can), but the long-term harm to this country will be done in the Judicial appointments. I’ve worked in DC too long and know how this game is played.

So, I’m over this whole Republican primary thing. Reason and common sense seem to be dying in this country and there seems to be no point in trying to discuss facts with a fanatical following that refuses to open their eyes to what has already played out in front of them for the last seven years.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

    I agree. It was a relief to switch to American Idol last night.

    I agree with you.

    Whoever fills Scalia’s shoes will determine what good is preserved in this country for the foreseeable future. Scalia’s seat MUST be filled with a conservative voice. I believe that is why Clarence Thomas spoke up recently.

    I only trust Ted Cruz to make such an appointment.

    janitor in reply to Whiskey Bravo. | March 4, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    I feel much as you do.

    But sometimes you have to play the cards you’ve been given.

    Cruz cannot win. He is not a uniter; he is not a Reagan. The liberal Republicans in northern and coasal states will not vote for him. Period. If he had the nomination, the entire race would be unrelenting screaming and hysterics in the media over the courts and abortion.

    Instead of the immediately pressing issues of immigration, national security and the economic state of this country.

    Much of Cruz’s position is now reiterating a firm stance on issues that Trump brought up in the first place — and which would not have been on the radar or under discussion at all.

    Moreover, notwithstanding how brilliant Cruz is, he has experience in neither economics nor military issues. (In fact, there is only one remaining candidate who maybe can claim to be politically, and that’s Kasich.)

    Had Trump not been in the race, Cruz would be in single digits, and Jeb! would be the candidate.

    Finally, as you have noted, a large part of the carrying on in the discourse has been planted by the media, who reiterate over and over again the most ridiculous minutiae and making a brouhaha of it. And the bulk of the yammering pertains to what Trump has said. The pretext is “front runner” but the ulterior motivations include GOPe shenanigans and money, traffic. Much of the commentary about Trump is exaggerated or out of context or just false, e.g. the KKK “issue”.

    Perfection is the enemy of good.

      gmac124 in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      “Cruz cannot win. He is not a uniter; he is not a Reagan. The liberal Republicans in northern and coasal states will not vote for him. Period. If he had the nomination, the entire race would be unrelenting screaming and hysterics in the media over the courts and abortion.”

      If you started that paragraph with Trump I would agree. Of course if Trump is nominated we will here non stop screaming and hysterics over Trump University and immigration. At least with Cruz it is policy not personal baggage.

        janitor in reply to gmac124. | March 4, 2016 at 4:31 pm

        Trump University is one relatively minor civil lawsuit. The sort of thing that can and does happen to large companies, especially conglomerates. I do not know the merits of the suit, and I’ve seen no write-ups on it. It pales in significance to things that Clinton has done.

        We not seen all kinds of plaintiff lawsuits from bogus to valid on all kinds of things, especially pertaining to education.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm

          MORE complete bullshit.

          It’s a FRAUD lawsuit, stemming from a VERY personalized scam by Donald Ducks HIMSELF, not some remote underling.

          FRAUD judgments are NOT EVEN DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY as a general rule. BECAUSE they involve INTENTIONAL BAD CONDUCT.

          This kind of apologia just brands you as a cultist, and someone who’s lost whatever intellectual integrity you may have had.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 5:09 pm

          Okay, you’ve convinced me.

          Given that Cruz can’t win, let’s all now tear each other to shreds so that we can have a brokered convention and Romney or Rubio carry the Republican banner, and see the equivalent of a thief and mass murderer become president after she’s been pardoned by Obama following the very thorough FBI investigation now being done to eliminate any future possible redress because double jeopardy.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 5:21 pm

          Because we simply can’t just let someone successfully make it into office without shoving ideological differences starkly into liberals’ faces and then quietly take guidance from the conservatives such as Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, Sarah Palin, Rick Scott, etc.

          No, we can’t do that. We have to do like Ted Cruz and make absolutely sure that more than half of the potential voters understand clearly and in brightly painted colors (that, note, didn’t persist in Google in 1979, or to be reiterated on tens of thousands of blogs) that he is their enemy.

          Smart.

          gmac124 in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 6:33 pm

          “Trump University is one relatively minor civil lawsuit. ”

          Doesn’t matter if you are correct about it being minor or not. The Democrats will ride that wave like a surfer all the way to the win if Trump is the nominee. Trump has about 50 bags of baggage around his neck that will drag him under in the general election. In fact the ONLY reason he has garnered any attention is because the base is so pissed off.

          Now the reason why I support Cruz is if we are going to lose I at least want someone I can be proud to support. Saying well Cruz can’t win and then jumping ship is just a cop out saying you aren’t willing to fight for your principles.

      “Cruz cannot win. He is not a uniter; he is not a Reagan.”

      Have you noticed that you and your gang of lost boys have united against Cruz.

      And, many others have mentioned how great Ted Cruz is to work with.

      Cruz is united with a conservative heart and a brilliant mind. No one knows where Trump is coming from. His supporters have to imagine and project a happy ending for him.

      Cruz knows how to get people fired up about what is good and what is bad, about true justice, not Trumpian ways to negotiate.

      A true Conservative in these ‘last’ days of America will be a polemic. What is at stake is more than the slogan “Making America Great. The foundations are deeply cracked.

      Cruz is now the one yelling “Stop.”

      Make America great yourself.

        That also makes Cruz the perfect advisor, judge, or appointee. Northeast and coastal Republicans will not vote for Cruz because they do not prioritize conservative social issues, nor has he shown himself to be able to get Congress to follow him.

        I wish it were otherwise.

        Sometimes the smarter way to accomplish something is to not get confrontatively in the opposition’s face. That doesn’t mean that you lie. What it means is that you don’t push the areas that will cause consternation into the other side’s face.

        No one can accomplish anything if he can’t first get elected.

    janitor in reply to Whiskey Bravo. | March 4, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Let’s look at Supreme Court appointments too. Cruz never would have supported Roberts had he had a crystal ball — but nobody has one. Now Cruz claims (in hindsight) that he would not have nominated Roberts, but no one forced him to write a glowing article or support the president’s choice (for political reasons), and we know that Cruz never would have been supportive had he had doubts.

    Or just take the example of the professor here, relenting that Loretta Lynch would be a good Atty Gen. So far, not. (I’ll change my opinion if she actually indicts Clinton and it’s not done “thoroughly” naming all possible charges for the wink-wink purpose of making sure that Obama can pardon everything.)

    Trump already has given examples of his choices, and is perfectly willing to take guidance and advice from people such as Cruz, Gingrich, and so forth. (No presidents actually go out and research this on their own; Cruz would be a first if he did.)

    There are no crystal balls.

    HandyGandy in reply to Whiskey Bravo. | March 4, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Yet based upon what Trump has been saying repeatedly about his thoughts on the Judiciary and who should be nominated, the country is going to lose the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court appointments to, at best, mushy justices and living Constitution judges.
    What exactly did Trump say that makes you think he will appoint bad judges?

    In the debates, Trump was the only one to suggest candidates. He suggested Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor. What makes those bad judges?

    What links do you have?

    Yeah I know now is the time to channel your inner Ragspierre and insult me instead of giving a substantial answer.

      Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 3:36 pm

      Substantially, Der Donald is…

      1. a liar

      2. has gone on record as thinking Kelo is swell

      3. has himself USED Kelo-type takings in his crony capitalist avarice

      4. has stated his loopy Collectivist sister is a fine judge

      5. thinks that property rights in others are subject to his diktat

      6. thinks it’s the federal government’s job to impose “mandtates” on markets

      7. thinks that Planned Abortionhood “does wonderful things”

      8. has stated “We have to take care of the women”

      9. has stated that he’ll assure health care so “nobody is dying in the streets”

      10. is an ANTI-federalist who has stated that various things that CANNOT be controlled by the central government WILL BE

      11. has stated that the military will OBEY his unlawful orders

      12. is an ANTI-contitutionalist thug and inchoate tyrant

      I could go on…

      Whiskey Bravo in reply to HandyGandy. | March 4, 2016 at 11:53 pm

      @HandyGandy. Seriously?

      Are you attempting to bait me into some sort of vitriolic response? It certainly appears so. For the record, I will state that I’m the one who finds your presumptive statement about my future comment to be insulting. And it doesn’t endear me to engaging you in a discussion, that’s for sure.

      If you are truly seeking a civil discussion about how Trump might nominate candidates in the Federal Judiciary-or on any other matter, then don’t end your questions to me in a somewhat sarcastic and presumptive tone. I don’t deal in, nor do I appreciate ad hominem disputation.

      Remember this in the future if you are seeking to discuss matters with me. That is, if you are truly looking for a discussion and not simply trying to engage in fruitless apologia.

I can see the future now.

I’ll set the stage:
7AM Daily National Security Meeting

The past several days, President Trump has been criticized for his response to a new spate of worldwide terror attacks. Trump, fearing his policies of having our military target not only terrorists themselves, but their entire extended families has backfired in the worst way possible. Uniting former American allies into a new Anti-American coalition. President Trump, fearing that the meeting will be a confirmation of his mistakes – decides to go on a campaign fundraiser and skip the briefing. Trusting Goering – er Christie to find a way to figure it all out.

I mean, it’s not like Trump golfs all the time…amirite?!

    Kondor77 in reply to Kondor77. | March 4, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    UPDATE!

    He’s now walked it back and changed his mind. More like he needed to be reminded that as President there are still rules you need to follow. Just another Obama in the making.

Henry Hawkins | March 4, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Why go to a crowd that hates him?

Good question. Better question: why commit to going in the first place? Poor judgment or diabolical 3D political chess?

Run away, Sir Donald.

    forksdad in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 4, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    Your side has shown themselves as traitors who would rather lose than have you win. Your allies who once begged for your support are now sticking knives in your back.

    Why grant them the time of day? If they steal this election and ram someone other than the front runner down the country’s throat they will further shrink the republican base and perhaps lead to a split party that never returns to power.

    Demographics are against the republican party and the American people. So why are good people who know better trying to sabotage the nomination process and turn it into a brokered convention? Who do you think will be fighting for Americans when the party rips the nomination out of Trump’s hands and hands it to one of their anointed ones? Mittens? Rubio? You think they’re getting Cruz?

    Trump wasn’t my choice. I was always for Carson. Well he’s gone. I would have gone to Cruz but now that the party has become unhinged I wouldn’t support the Elite’s choice if Jesus was running and Teddy Roosevelt was Veep. Now I know they only are concerned with their own power. Not me nor mine and they never were.

      Wait, now Cruz is “the elites’ choice”? SRSLY?

        Kondor77 in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 4:11 pm

        They’ve completely lost their mind.

        Cruz has shown a willingness to give the Establishment the finger – time and time again. Which goes against everything Mr. Trump has ever said about, oh I don’t know, MAKING DEALS WITH the Democrats.. I just don’t understand the ‘outsider’ and ‘hes gonna bust Washington up’ argument.

        If you want a candidate to actually reform the GOP, to return it’s core to constitutional conservatism, there’s only one guy for that.

          forksdad in reply to Kondor77. | March 4, 2016 at 10:16 pm

          And if Cruz wins the nomination I will support him. If the GOPe falls in behind Cruz it will be because they think they can control him.

          What makes me angry is things like Beck saying he’d be stabbing Trump. People coming unhinged and accusing his supporters of racism. People photoshopping him like they did with Bush. Every single time the establishment attacks Trump he gets stronger. Instead of shooting at Trump why aren’t they aiming at Clinton? Why fight him harder than they ever fought a single democrat or liberal cause?

        forksdad in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 10:03 pm

        No read it again. I said you will not get Cruz. You will get a true Cuckservative. You will get Romney or Rubio. You will get no one who will change the status quo.

        I would honestly like your opinion. where do you see a path to an unbrokered convention without Trump as the front runner? If this gets thrown to a smoke filled room who do you see as the nominee? What will have to promise to get there?

        What do you hope will happen?

Well… I think CPAC is great.
But Trump withdrawing from it may not really be much of a statement at all.
He is trying to maintain a lead in a very heated race.
CPAC is a conservative forum, and certainly is an honor to speak there, however..in the larger sheme of things… one must decide what is the most beneficial way to allocate your time.
I think he is making a good choice. CPAC is all good and fine, but it does not award delegates.
Looks like a pretty simple choice to me.
I don’t read anything else into it.

Not all Trump followers are neo-nazis and white supremacists, but NONE seem the least bit concerned about having them in their midst – or about Trump retweeting their lies.

AFAIAC, acquiescence is close enough to acceptance. There were plenty of Germans who figured they could control the extremists once in power, too.

#NeverTrump

    janitor in reply to Estragon. | March 4, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Yeah well according to the liberal media and federal officials, they also are rampant in “patriot” groups and “tea party”.

    So much for that.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 3:27 pm

      That’s just a straw man fallacy. You can’t address the verity of the comment, so you deflect.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 3:40 pm

        What do you think of the comment?

          Janitor’s observation is actually quite astute. I can’t see any way to sidestep the fact that the same eliminationist rhetoric that regularly gets used against the right in general, and especially against the Tea Party movement, is now being used by conservatives against Donald Trump in much the same way. I don’t have much time for the tactic at all, no matter whom it’s being used against.

          Remember when the exact same tactics were being used against Rick Perry over the rock near the entrance to his hunting lodge?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

          Exactly

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 4:17 pm

          Was Rick Perry re-tweeting pictures of the rock?

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 4:29 pm

          The difference is that the allegations against the TEA Party movement, the patriot movement, and Perry were all made up. This time they’re well-founded. Just because someone is falsely accused of a crime doesn’t mean there are no real criminals.

      Milhouse in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 4:27 pm

      Except that we know they aren’t, while they are prominent among the Trumpeters.

    Barry in reply to Estragon. | March 4, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    estragone, a smear merchant just like any good democrat.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 3:54 pm

      That’s just a smear you’ve been merchandising for months.

      No sale.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 4:02 pm

        Some Cruz followers are neo-nazis and white supremacists.

        The same thing gets trotted out every election cycle against whoever the R candidate is:
        Racist
        Misogynist
        fill in the blank

        It’s a staple D tactic, sorry you let your TDS blind you to this. Should Cruz win the nomination, they will be doing it to him. Guaranteed.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 4:31 pm

          Some Cruz followers are neo-nazis and white supremacists.

          Really? What’s your evidence? We know about the ones supporting Trump. There is no reason to assume there are any supporting anyone else.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 4:51 pm

          “Really? What’s your evidence?”

          No evidence required. That’s the point.

          “We know about the ones supporting Trump. There is no reason to assume there are any supporting anyone else.”

          Who are they?

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 4:10 pm

        This is just you deflecting again, this time with a No True Scotsman fallacy.

        You didn’t bother addressing the factual assertions by Estragon. You just smeared.

        And, as I’ve noted before, it’s one thing to be falsely accused of various things (which is just what Collectivists DO), and quite another to be confronted with actual evidence of various things.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 4:36 pm

          “and quite another to be confronted with actual evidence of various things.”

          There is no evidence. There is just the ginned up BS by the media.

    Well, there are all sorts out there. KKK, Christians. Bikers. Ladies of the night.
    I am pretty sure some of them vote.
    So, whet do you do with that?
    ” If you happen to belong to this group, you are not allowed to cast ballot for… ”
    Absolutely pointless argument.

Since 98% of Americans don’t know what cpac is, it means nothing.
Half of the remaining 2% give a crap about cpac.
The 1% are all hot and bothered.

    So why did The Donald originally plan to go, and right in the middle of a campaign, if it’s such a nothingburger anyway?

      janitor in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 4:16 pm

      I think he’s gone to a number of them. It wasn’t a special set for the election season.

      Barry in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 4:16 pm

      Easy answer – he thought it would be to his benefit. Now it’s not, with the GOPe ginning up a scorched earth policy against him. Only a fool would step into horsedoodoo.

      How hard is that to figure out.

        Since 98% of Americans don’t know what cpac is, it means nothing.
        Half of the remaining 2% give a crap about cpac.

        How could he ever have seen wasting time on such a big ol’ nothingburger as possibly having been to his advantage?

          Barry in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 4:54 pm

          Perhaps you are in the 98%…

          CPAC doesn’t speak to the American people. It speaks to the insiders. So, maybe there is an advantage in speaking to the 1 or 2%, and now there is not.

          Try real hard to not let the TDS completely blind you to reality.

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 5:07 pm

          What you mean is “insiders” of the conservative movement…or BASE.

          So, yeah. No wonder Donald Ducks ran like a scalded spider after last night!

          Barry in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2016 at 5:15 pm

          “What you mean is “insiders” of the conservative movement…or BASE.”

          Exactly what I mean. The first line butlickers of the donors.

Rags, if I thought Cruz could win, I’d be supporting him. I think that’s about the fourth time I’ve written that on LI. We differ perhaps in that I’ve been an east-coaster, while you’re in Texas, I believe. I have been surrounded by Republicans for many who are not social conservatives. They don’t care about abortion, they don’t care about gay marriage, they don’t care about traditional values, and some of them were Republicans when the social conservatives were in the Democratic party, pre-Reagan.

With regard to Trump, you write that he is:

1. a liar

I have seen no evidence that is less of a liar than most politicians, and if we include exaggeration and misleading by omission in that, than ANY politician. I include Cruz in the latter.

2. has gone on record as thinking Kelo is swell

3. has himself USED Kelo-type takings in his crony capitalist avarice

5. thinks that property rights in others are subject to his diktat

I have grouped these because they are not different items but the same item. Anti-Kelo. something that is a local government issue for those who have a problem with it. Moreover, I’m pretty sure that Trump isn’t a lawyer. I’m not at all sure that his legal analysis about Kelo is particularly nuanced. “Eminent domain” is a different issue. Moreover, this is one, fairly minor issue in the scheme of things, if we consider what’s immediately pressing in importance.

4. has stated his loopy Collectivist sister is a fine judge

It’s his SISTER!! How serious can this be taken. Really. It’s not like he said Kagan or Sotomayer are fine judges. And this is with regard to a comment he made as a private citizen. Oh. Come. On. Apparently his sister also was appointed by Reagan.

6. thinks it’s the federal government’s job to impose “mandtates” on markets

I need a cite where he’s said this. I’ve never heard it. If you’re referring to ethanol, as I’ve stated before, it’s just not an imediately pressing issue.

A candidate can be as pure as the driven snow, but if he shoves every less-than-immediately pressing issue into the voter’s faces, then he will muddy up the discourse all kinds of ways and he won’t be able to get elected. (Bruz.)

7. thinks that Planned Abortionhood “does wonderful things”

8. has stated “We have to take care of the women”

He knows PP doesn’t, and he’s said that he’s against funding so long as PP does abortions 9which obviates the issue), so why shove it otherwise into pro-PP or neutral people’s faces. That won’t accomplish anything.

9. has stated that he’ll assure health care so “nobody is dying in the streets”

There’s nothing that can be argued with this. No one would advocate for it. It’s Trump’s way of deflecting argument from liberals about eeek-eeek conservatives are heartless and would let people starve, die in the streets, etc. etc.

10. is an ANTI-federalist who has stated that various things that CANNOT be controlled by the central government WILL BE

What things? Cannot or “should not be”. We have a long way to go before we can fix the problem of the tail wagging the dog via block grants to states that’s gone on for many decades. No president is going to fix this; at best it can be chipped away at toward ultimate reversal.

11. has stated that the military will OBEY his unlawful orders

Orders from the Commander in Chief in military actions define what is and is not “lawful”, e.g. RoE.

12. is an ANTI-contitutionalist thug and inchoate tyrant

He can’t be an “anti-constitutionalist” because he’s not a lawyer who opines on constitutional theory. As far as being an “inchoate tyrant” that’s name-calling that just doesn’t enlighten me and doesn’t seem apt. Seems wildly exaggerated, even if you don’t like his views. Stalin he’s not.

      janitor in reply to Rick. | March 4, 2016 at 4:49 pm

      It’s not in his current plan.

      I wonder how many of us, given 60 seconds to respond to a speaking question that takes 3 minutes to ask, while we have someone like a debate moderator or a Rubio yapping interruptions, could instantly fashion and then accurately reiterate all the points of complicated legislative proposal or legal brief.

    Barry in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    “11. has stated that the military will OBEY his unlawful orders”

    Just to be clear, he never stated such. He said the military will follow his orders. Fox news does not get to decide what is / is not lawful.

    Most of this refers to international law, which is of course a farce. And most of the current combatants are not signatories anyway, meaning we don’t even follow that.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      “Just to be clear, he never stated such.”

      This is ANOTHER of the dishonest games you play.

      “Put up a quote where he said…”

      He SAID he would send the military to kill the extended families of terrorists. THAT IS NOT a close call involving the nuances of international law. IT’S FLUCKING ILLEGAL. IT’S OUTRAGEOUS. It’s ALSO STOOOOOOOooooooooopid.

      He SAID the military would obey his orders.

      Well, not this little army drab duck. Not ever. Not when I wore the uniform, and not if I can defend any member of the services who refuses that insanity.

      Stop LYING…!!!

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 5:08 pm

        “He SAID he would send the military to kill the extended families of terrorists.”

        Put up or shut up. Find the quote, not what your fevered TDS mind dreams up, and not some answer that you ad 2+2 and get 5.

          “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Trump said on Fox and Friends on Dec. 2, 2015. “They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”

          It was subtle, I know, but did you catch the part where he said “you have to take out their families”?

          And I don’t think he meant “…to Chipotle.”

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 5:36 pm

          I know that quote Amy.

          It doesn’t say “He SAID he would send the military to kill the extended families of terrorists.”

          Not even close. You can read into it whatever your fevered TDS minds wish. It could just as easily refer to dropping bombs on the bastards without regard for their families, one of their favorite tactics to stop the bombs.

          Now, just so I am completely on record here:
          If you send terrorists to kill my family, I will send the military to kill yours. Maybe that IS what Trump means, but that is not what he said. That is what I said. That family will include terrorists, so completely within the “rules”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 6:15 pm

          “It could just as easily refer to dropping bombs on the bastards without regard for their families, one of their favorite tactics to stop the bombs.”

          That’s just ANOTHER false statement in ANOTHER string of dishonesty, Butt-hurt Barri.

          We have REGULARLY killed family members in Barracula’s drone war when they were in close proximity with terrorists.

          So, was Der Donald COMPLETELY unaware of THAT, or was he making like Mr. Big Balls and talking about something NEW?

          YOUR TDS is showing, and it looks dishonest.

          Dunnit…???

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm

          “We have REGULARLY killed family members in Barracula’s drone war when they were in close proximity with terrorists.”

          We’ve also regularly not done so.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 11:17 am

          “…when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,…”

          What part of the referenced quote do you not understand?

        Skookum in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 5:35 pm

        A subversive turd like you served in the US military? I thought they had a minimum IQ standard, komrade.

    Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    A lot of apologia, some of which is complete bullshit in the face of obvious evidence…

    all saying…again…you are a T-rump cultist. Who is EITHER very ill-informed or disingenuous.

      janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm

      What’s the alternative, Rags, given that Cruz cannot win the nomination?

      Maybe we could work toward a brokered convention and then… the powers that be will name Cruz or Newt Gingrich? In my dreams…

    gmac124 in reply to janitor. | March 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    “11. has stated that the military will OBEY his unlawful orders

    Orders from the Commander in Chief in military actions define what is and is not “lawful”, e.g. RoE.”

    WRONG. Ever heard of the Geneva convention? They call those orders war crimes.

      Barry in reply to gmac124. | March 4, 2016 at 5:11 pm

      “WRONG. Ever heard of the Geneva convention? They call those orders war crimes.”

      “Most of this refers to international law, which is of course a farce. And most of the current combatants are not signatories anyway, meaning we don’t even follow that.

      You might try reading all of what I said. Does the Geneva convention apply to non state actors, terrorists?

        gmac124 in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 7:11 pm

        “You might try reading all of what I said. Does the Geneva convention apply to non state actors, terrorists?”

        Yes it does. Because we have signed the Geneva convention we are held to its rules whether the people we are fighting follow it or not. Think of Bosnia, Milosevic if my memory is correct. He was fighting armed insurgents that technically hadn’t signed either and he was still found guilty of war crimes.

          Barry in reply to gmac124. | March 4, 2016 at 7:41 pm

          gmac124, with all respect to you, do a search.

          You are completely wrong. I’ll let you do the research on your own.

        gmac124 in reply to Barry. | March 4, 2016 at 10:30 pm

        “gmac124, with all respect to you, do a search.

        You are completely wrong. I’ll let you do the research on your own.”

        I did as you said Barry and refreshed myself. You might want to google Geneva convention and read it. Milosevic might have been a bad example but the premise of it being a war crime was 100% correct. It’s one of those things the military beats into soldiers so you don’t forget most of the major points. It has been awhile though.

          Barry in reply to gmac124. | March 5, 2016 at 12:40 am

          GMAC124,
          I am not referencing Milosevic. I’m referring to non state actors like terrorists. I think if you look at that you will find what I say to be true.

        gmac124 in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 6:40 pm

        “I am not referencing Milosevic. I’m referring to non state actors like terrorists. I think if you look at that you will find what I say to be true.”

        “The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation “accepts and applies the provisions” of the Conventions”

        Would be what you are referring to. That is a grey area that could be used for certain actions. However because we are a signatory I believe and would hold our government accountable for any grave breaches. Killing family members of terrorists would be a grave breach.

        gmac124 in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 11:13 pm

        It doesn’t matter that the terrorists are non state actors. IT WOULD NOT EXCUSE US KILLING THEIR FAMILIES. That would be a war crime. Besides if we are fighting ISIS are they still considered a non state?

        Now to exam the other push by Trump about increased torture. Water boarding is an effective interrogation method. Is it torture? It is a grey area. It causes no lasting physical injuries but can and will cause mental injuries. Stronger methods that ARE torture will cause lasting physical injuries. At that point I don’t feel we could excuse anyone either directing OR causing those injuries. Which would make them crimes in the least and would be hard pressed to defend if they are taking to a tribunal and charged as war crimes. So it doesn’t matter if they are non state actors or not, stepping over that line could and should have real consequences.

    gulfbreeze in reply to janitor. | March 5, 2016 at 5:24 am

    “9. has stated that he’ll assure health care so ‘nobody is dying in the streets’.

    “There’s nothing that can be argued with this. No one would advocate for it. It’s Trump’s way of deflecting argument from liberals about eeek-eeek conservatives are heartless and would let people starve, die in the streets, etc. etc.”

    So true, and the criticism in #9 is laughable. Let’s search exactly where in conservatism does one find a pro-“Let’s remove government support for taking care of the homeless’ healthcare so they can die in the streets” principle. Granted, there is a place to discuss exactly how to provide healthcare for the homeless, but until someone figures out how to do it better (and then implement it), I have no problem with government providing it.

    But if conservatism means ignoring the plight of the homeless and letting them die in the streets, I’m more than happy to forever abandon the entire ideology…lock, stock and barrel.

      Ragspierre in reply to gulfbreeze. | March 5, 2016 at 7:42 am

      You seem to think that you’re better than the rest of conservatives.

      If you wouldn’t allow someone to die in the streets, WTF makes you think you’re better than than the rest of us?

      Ragspierre in reply to gulfbreeze. | March 5, 2016 at 7:59 am

      “…but until someone figures out how to do it better (and then implement it), I have no problem with government providing it.”

      Than you have no problem with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing it on into the future. You support the status quo.

      When the CENTRAL BIG GOVERNMENT occupies a space…like taking care of people who cannot take care of themselves…they FORCE OUT virtually all other possible players.

      Americans have proven for over a century that…left with the power to act…we will provide for each other like no other people in history.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 5, 2016 at 11:02 am

        “Americans have proven for over a century that…left with the power to act…we will provide for each other like no other people in history.”

        While not a breeze from the gulf, I’ll not let that stop me…

        What you say here is certainly true. OTOH, it is not the case for all people at all times. Charity will not help the person that shows up at a hospital sans insurance and having a heart attack for example. We have current law, before and after obamacare that requires treatment from any public hospital. Regardless of your opinion that the free market will somehow take care of that problem, it will not. And the vast majority of the American people will not accept that. I know you think it will work but it simply cannot. Free markets work, but they don’t always work perfectly. There are many examples, I don’t need to list them, you know them, where the market needs specific rules. The fewer the better, but I see no way to get around this.

        Trumps plan for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare is pretty sound and probably as good as you will get. I still see nothing from cruz on healthcare…

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 11:43 am

          Again, Barry, you are full of shit up to your ears.

          “Free markets” are not unity with charity, but they have enabled charity as never before in the history of the world.

          Charity does not, strictly speaking, have anything to do with market economics. They are certainly complimentary, however. There is a vast preponderance of evidence showing that Americans find utility in taking care of others…many times non-Americans.

          One of the most interesting of all phenomenon in history is the explosion (and it was that) of private charity in the US starting a few years after the Civil War. It was essentially a “grass-roots” event, with absolutely no Federal influence.

          IF you NOT aware, the Shriner’s hospitals are an excellent example of just how full of shit your are. I am not affiliated with them in any way, but a friend and paralegal I’ve worked with IS. He assures me that they set aside a billion (with a “b”) dollars when they build one of their famous hospitals. Those are, in turn, famous for excellent care provided to all comers.

          This isn’t rocket surgery. People of very modest means in my little rural area help people all the time with crushing medical costs.

          It’s just what works.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 11:46 am

          Oh, and I’ve read the “T-rump” medical “plan”.

          It used “free market” at least five times, and contained some unquestionably good stuff.

          It also contradicted its “free market” puffery several times, and T-rump expressly a few times.

          Did you catch them?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 12:37 pm

          “Again, Rags, you are full of shit up to your ears.”

          When you respond to the single example I give I’ll take you seriously. The rest is just your typical deflection.

          Hint: The Shriner hospitals, nor any charitable organization, will be of any help when a person with a life threatening condition shows up at the door.

          When you honestly deal with that, which you will not do, then I’ll take you seriously. Until then I understand you ignore it because you do not have an answer.

          “Did you catch them?”

          Of course, I do not proclaim it to be a complete “free market” solution. Such is impossible.

          “and contained some unquestionably good stuff.”

          I’m happy to see you recognize this.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 1:28 pm

          “The Shriner hospitals, nor any charitable organization, will be of any help when a person with a life threatening condition shows up at the door.”

          Where do yo even come up with this crap?

          EVERY religious hospital, teaching hospital, and MOST general hospitals have endowments from people for caring for the indigent.

          Are the adequate? Depends. THAT also ignores all the totally private, ad hoc charity I see every day in county convenience stores.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 3:20 pm

          “…and MOST general hospitals have endowments from people for caring for the indigent. ”

          But not enough. There is near 50 billion in unpaid hospital bills each year. The federal government pays about 75% of that.

          Now, if it is going to be a completely free market you will have to replace that with charity. Possible, maybe.

          You are still avoiding the free market question.

          Shall we eliminate the law that requires treatment or not?

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 3:30 pm

          Oh, now that you’ve gotten around to stating it without all the extraneous BS,

          yes.

          Remember, markets innovate, use resources most efficiently, and RAISE the standand of living for EVERYONE.

          BIG GOVERNMENT ruins.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 7:33 pm

          “yes”

          You knew what the question was, the one you refused to answer a few weeks ago.

          Still, an honest answer. One I would like to share but know it will never fly. It is of course, the free market way. But it will not be supported by at least 75% of Americans.

          The first death at the hospital door will end that.

Trump avoids tough questions, Trump campaign does not want another melt down… Trump is not conservative… there’s that

CPAC is conservative? Where is their call to enforce the Constitution, including the natural-born citizen clause?

My oh my. All of this crass and vulgarity claiming he’s crass and vulgar.

I guess it does take one to know one.

I’m actually surprised. Don’t know why. Should have seen this coming I guess.

Too bad. I always thought better of the commenters here. Guess I was wrong.

    W0X0F in reply to jakee308. | March 4, 2016 at 10:57 pm

    The Trump era has brought a whole new set of rules for the game. Play by the old rules and you’ll find yourself at a competitive disadvantage. Withdraw from the game and you allow your opponents an effortless win. They’d love nothing more than for you to puff out your chest with righteous indignation and retire from the game.

    gulfbreeze in reply to jakee308. | March 5, 2016 at 6:14 am

    Your post has reminded me I need a long break from LI. The discourse has dropped from collegiate to junior high. Especially when the first response you received is essentially, “Well, we have to do it because the other side does it.”

    In the last hour I’ve read a single poster refer to another as the African-American member of the “Our Gang” comedies (a name that got another user banned within the last few weeks when referencing the current resident of the White House), then telling another that he nursed on his mother’s breasts (use your jr. high imagination to insert the actual words), along with references that another perform oral sex on a current Presidential candidate.

    And this isn’t unusual, it’s become daily discourse on LI over the past weeks.

    Proverbs 13:20
    http://bit.ly/1p6Ehrq

      Ragspierre in reply to gulfbreeze. | March 5, 2016 at 7:39 am

      You’re full of shit.

      BUCKWHEAT has all the racial connotion of “nimrod”, “daisy”, “huckleberry”, or “sparky”. Unless, of course YOU are vested in its racialism.

      I don’t do PC. So you can stick yours, buckwheat.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 5, 2016 at 11:10 am

        Rags, I’m certain you’re no racist.

        However, buckwheat is a racially charged word when use in the context of describing a black person. At least where I’m from.

        You probably don’t realize it. I’ve have over my life discovered other items that were offensive to black folks that I did not know.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 11:51 am

          Wul, duh. I don’t know the race of any poster here, nor do I think that matters.

          Buckwheat is a cereal grain. I may have heard it wrong, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t the name of the Hippocrit in the Harry Potter movies.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 12:46 pm

          I remember reading when you used the term, and it certainly was without any racial connotation. I’m not quibbling with that.

          Just mentioning it for future reference. I am, as you know, not a PC person. I do however try to stay away from any racial animosity (but not religious, you get to choose that) or terms that are offensive. Buckweat was a black character in “our gang” a sweet, lovable one, but it has been used as a derogatory term none the less.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm

          I watched “Lil’ Rascals” and “Our Gang” when I was a kid.

          I asked my mother once if she liked them as a girl. She told me “No, they were way too tame” compared to the things she and my uncle did.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Barry. | March 5, 2016 at 1:22 pm

          Blacks, as a group that chooses to self-segregate, are offended by everything they can obscurely conjure to be an insult, no matter how off-the-wall.

Gosh, I can hardly wait until this election is over.
Then we can return to normal around here.

CPAC is largely populated by the conservative equivalent of the high school chess club. Combined with a meeting of the bible club. All be suckered to pay fees to listen to a group of pajama wearing bloggers pontificate about things which they know very little.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | March 5, 2016 at 6:10 am

    Like John Bolton, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, Sheriff David Clark, Jr., Michelle Malkin, Mollie Hemingway, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Larry Kudlow and Stever Forbes.

    Oh, and the sell-out Newt Gingrich.

    You wouldn’t feel comfortable there. It’s full of people who care about the Constitution and liberty. Very little sympathy with Collectivist cults of personality.

    That’s what Donald Ducks decided when the organizers made it clear he’d had to spend time answering questions…especially after Thursday night’s seppuku.

JackRussellTerrierist | March 5, 2016 at 12:57 am

Last night was the breach of the Trump wall.

He’s going down in flames of his own making.

Eh, Rubio set the precedent and now he’s the GOPe’s darling.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend