Okay, guys, it’s time for some strategy. I have to admit that this election cycle has confused me more than any before. The American electorate has changed and I just don’t understand it anymore. But there’s a big question that we, the members of the SBC Voices Super PAC (we’ve contributed 0$ to 0 candidates and raised $0 so far) need to discuss. It’s about the upcoming Florida GOP primary. It is one of the first 2 winner-take-all primaries and there are about 100 delegates (perhaps 99?) at stake. The guy with the most votes gets them ALL! If Trump wins, he’s on his way to the nomination. If Rubio can pull out a win in his home state, he’s back in the game, but if he loses he’s pretty much done. Then there is Cruz. He’s been surging and is in second place. He’d pretty much given up on Florida, but now he’s opening offices and trying to make a play.
Here’s the Cruz dilemma:
- If he gains ground it will likely be by pulling support from Rubio, guaranteeing a Trump victory and helping the Donald toward the nomination. He drives Rubio out of the race but makes it less likely that he can win. If Trump wins both Ohio and Florida, you can pretty much start printing the ballots for the fall.
- If he helps Rubio win, it prevents Trump from gaining ground, but it brings Rubio back in as genuine threat and makes the idea of a brokered convention even more likely. It is generally agreed that Cruz will not emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention.
So, it would seem that Cruz has to decide if he can win the nomination outright by driving Rubio from the race. And, if he does that, he’d better succeed because the seeming cooperation between the campaigns would be over. If he throws the long bomb, tries to drive Rubio from the race and make it a two-man race (ignoring Kasich), there is much that can go wrong. Rubio could still win or Trump could win Florida (likely) and if he adds Ohio, then Cruz is finished. He has managed to ruin Rubio AND himself.
Here are the ground rules for our discussion:
1) The SBC Voices Super PAC is committed to that candidate called NeverTrump.
We are not about reviving Rubio’s flagging chances, nor are we about getting Cruz elected.
I know that is hard for some of the more passionate Cruzites, who think he is destined to align the planets, balance the force, and usher in the millennium. But we aren’t trying to figure out how to further Cruz, but about how to stop Trump.
2) Trumpites, sit this one out.
You guys can’t believe anyone doesn’t love Trump. We don’t. We want to stop him. The issue is how to do that. You can feel free to weigh in on the topic, but you can’t ridicule or bluster.
3) Candidate insults are not welcome – stick to the topic.
Don’t bash Cruz or Rubio. We aren’t even going to bash Trump – we assume he needs to be defeated! This is a limited discussion, about promoting a single candidate, NeverTrump.
The issue is simple. How do we advance our candidate “NeverTrump” in the Florida primary?
- The Cruz campaign wants to force Rubio out and make it a one-on-one with Trump, but is this best for our guy, NeverTrump?
- Rubio wants to win and get back in, but is that what is best for NeverTrump?
Here are the current delegate counts, thanks to our campaign’s statistician, “Poor Richard.”
Trump – 384 (31% of what is required for nomination)
Cruz – 300 (24%)
Rubio – 151 (12%)
Kasich – 37 (3%)
All others – 20 (1.6%)
Trump has 384 delegates and the others combined have 508. Obviously, that means that at this point, we are headed to a brokered convention. You have to win 50% of the delegates, plus 1. But if you add the Florida and Ohio delegates to Trump, he’s likely to be on his way, especially if he wins Michigan tomorrow.
Discussion Questions.
1. Is there any realistic hope that Cruz can actually WIN in Florida or Ohio? (I don’t think so)
2. Is it not true that Cruz’ involvement in Florida is almost guaranteeing a Trump victory?
3. If Trump wins Florida (driving Rubio out) is there a path to victory for Cruz in a one-to-one race?
4. Can NeverTrump win if Trump wins Florida?
5. Is a brokered convention that bad of an option?
This discussion is obviously going to be about more than Florida, so you are going to need to address one way that NeverTrump could win that you (and I) would not like . . . . which would be Trump’s defeat in the general election.
I did not say what I meant, above. Could have said it better. What I meant was, should we add a #6 point to discuss what to do if the circumstances carry us to a point that forces a choice between NeverTrump (Clinton) and NeverClinton (Trump)? If we “pledge” (mentally) to support and vote for NeverTrump, would that mean we should vote for Clinton in a general eletion where he is the only other viable choice? How should one measure their, or their party’s, relative detestability? Isn’t that what we are talking about? An election where many vote for who they are for, and just as many vote against who they are most against?
When I wrote this, it was with the assumption that the strategy was to beat Trump BEFORE the nomination.
I will not vote for Trump even in the general, but I’m just as NeverClinton as I am NeverTrump.
I’m embroiled in this controversy having just blogged about Trump’s incompetency to lead this country as its President last week. There is a practical and theological dimension to this initiative and campaign:
Practical: I do believe Cruz can give Trump a run for his money in and out of Florida (of where I pastor) due to recent momentum trends, particularly were he to receive truly conservative and evangelically based endorsements. Rubio and Carson jumping on the Cruz train would help immensely. Problem is Rubio and the timing of his departure from the race. I agree that his only shot at remaining in the race is a home state win here in FL.
Cruz and Rubio must appeal to voters with the Donald’s utter lack of policy depth, wisdom and knowledge, even more than his utter disregard for decency. Try though they may, they can’t outrank or out mock Trump. Trashing opponents is his home-court advantage.
Theological: I firmly believe America has been in a generation (at least) long season of Romans 1:18-32 judgment, God’s “wrath against ungodliness.” Should the Lord providentially wish that His church and this nation suffer more, in order to spur real repentance, the Donald or the Democratic nominee would be the perfect choice to sit in the White House from that perspective.
All political machinations and strategy aside, God is sovereign and His will of decree will determine who wins this election. Therefore, the church’s two best initiatives to undertake ASAP in my view are:
Prayer- as per Daniel 8, the church in America, must seek God’s face, broken by its sins of omission and commission and seek His mercy in this election and cry out, “Never Trump” ( I would add Hillary in that prayer as well). Church leaders must spur this initiative on. I know I will with our church.
Political Discipleship – all too many pastors and churches are timid when it comes to preaching and teaching politics, which are NOT excluded from the kingdom and the Biblical counsel of God. It should be unconscionable for a born-again disciple of Christ to even consider voting for Trump in the GOP primaries.
Christians must be told that and why in their corporate and smaller gatherings. God’s people must be educated in Biblical wisdom as to the nature of their roles and responsibilities with respect to government.
May God have mercy on us all.
“It should be unconscionable for a born-again disciple of Christ to even consider voting for Trump in the GOP primaries.”
Thankfully you won’t be Judging the Living and Dead!
It should be unconscionable that Conservatives would continue to led by the nose by the GOP Establishment and believe the lies they tell about what they will do if elected. #NeverGOPEstablishment
More info from HotAir. ”
PPP Ohio: Trump 38, Kasich 35, Cruz 15, Rubio 5
Kasich better win that.
The goid news there is that polls seem to have consistently overstated Trump’s numbers.
More polling FYI:
Monmouth poll of Florida: Trump leads Rubio by eight — but Rubio leads Trump in early vote by 25
That is much better than the “Trump by 20” polls I was seeing. I don’t know why the polls are so bad, but in general the polls show much greater support for Trump than actually exists
I’ve wondered if people just say they’re voting for trump in some big conspiracy to pump him in polls. Gotta go make my tinfoil hat now…
The polls are bad because there is no scientific sampling process in place to gauge the voting tendencies of people who previously were non-voters, but are now all in on Trump. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/01/news/mn-38174 or Google ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ Disaster Haunts Pollsters
A lot of it is the “likely voter” problem. A lot more people say they’re going to vote than actually do, and you can imagine why Trump might get a higher percentage of those votes. Especially in closed primary states like Florida.
Right now the best hope for NeverTrump is a brokered convention. For that you need Marco and Kasich to stay in as long as possible.
And for Marco to win Fla and Kasich to win Ohio.
It’s amazing so many are so blind to the GOP Establishment and their impotence, their coddling of Obama and their refusal to do what the People gave them their seats to do. And now, they don’t care at all about Cruz, they would rather have Rubio and Kasich stay in the race, get a brokered convention and then run Romney, Ryan, or Bloomberg.
Wake up. The GOP Establishment is playing many for fools! You should be #NeverGOPEstablishment They need to go the way of the Whigs.
This has to be the most ironic comment I have ever seen. I can agree with you half way on your premise; someone is definitely being played for a fool.
Mike, so you think the GOP Establishment wants Cruz to be the nominee? Or you don’t think they want a brokered Convention? Or you can’t believe they would prop up someone besides Rubio or Kasich?
Rubio can’t win but, he’s drawing enough support away from Cruz that Trump will likely win the nomination. In fact I doubt Rubio will be able to win his home state because he went back on his promise to the voters that got him elected and he co-sponsored amnesty legislation. If he would bow out now his supporters would get behind Cruz and Trump would be history. I hate the thought of a brokered convention. I would rather have the people decide.
Brokered conviction is absolutely the worst case scenario.
If Donald Trump wins the nomination out right a lot of people will vote for him in the general election – including Democrats – and he possibly – maybe – could pull it out.
A broker convention about which he gets the nomination – would so cause of revolt within the principled conservative wing of the party that he would lose very very very badly.
If the nomination is wrestled away from trump – with him having the most delegates – he will certainly run third-party – and causecomplete havoc.
Truly the only hope for a #NeverTrumpAgenda is to gather around Ted Cruz and beat him out right – it can happen but only if Rubio and Kasich are man enough to admit that they’ve lost and back out.
If Cruz can strike a deal with Kasich for vice President – and do so soon – Rubio is toast. Actually I think Rubio is already toast he’s just handing the election to Donald Trump.
Let me remind you that the point of this is NOT “how we can get Cruz elected” but how we can stop Trump.
They’re one in the same – 😉
Look, I’m not a Cruz guy. His “deport them all” immigration policy and “make the sand glow” foreign policy make him a way less than ideal candidate to me. BUT, he is clearly the best hope for the GOP to stop Trump if that is truly the goal. The problem is that the GOP establishment doesn’t want to stop only Trump. They want to stop Cruz too. He doesn’t play by their rules. I think many of the establishment guys would rather have Trump than Cruz.
Rubio and Kasich are selfishly choosing the hail mary pass of a contested convention (which is the only way either of them has a chance of getting the nomination) over simply stopping Donald Trump.
It will result in Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination and losing to the Democrat candidate in November.
I saw an interesting thing after Saturday’s primaries. It came from a Democratic operative, so I’m not sure precisely how accurate it was. He was pro-Trump, but I think part of that was because he thought Hillary would soundly pound Trump.
Anyway, his theory was that Cruz had almost no shot at the nomination. Even though he is the leading “anti-Trump” right now, he says the math is bad for Cruz.
Here’s his thinking, as I remember it.
1. Cruz has pretty much ONLY appealed to strongly evangelical populations.
2. The upcoming states skew away from strongly conservative and evangelical populations. He’s going to be moving out of his comfort zone. Unless he broadens his appeal, it’s going to be tough for him.
3. Trump will win Ohio and Florida, because of Cruz’s efforts.
4. There is absolutely NO WAY that Cruz will win at a brokered convention. He’s only slightly more popular among establishment Republicans than Trump, so if he manages to get a split, he’s toast.
So, he said, Cruz cannot win outright.
Cruz cannot win in a brokered convention.
Again, I have no idea how accurate his analysis, but some of his points made sense.
It seems to me that a brokered convention is the best best for NeverTrump. That would probably lead to the nomination of someone WONDERFUL like Romney, or perhaps Ryan.
However, if they pick Ben Sasse from Nebraska, I’ll be over the moon!
“1. Cruz has pretty much ONLY appealed to strongly evangelical populations.”
Yeah, like Maine! (Unless “ONLY” means something different than I think it does.)
Similar arguments like you just said could be said against Rubio – with all of his Electoral losses and primaries for which he didn’t even meet the threshold to get any delegates whatsoever to boot the case for Marcos departure.
Its mind-boggling to me that any reasonable person can look at the real numbers and actual elections and say the cruz should be the one that gets out – it’s absolutely mind-boggling.
No one said anything about Cruz getting out.
But I do remind you that this is not about your love for Cruz or your hatred for Rubio. It’s about defeating Trump. Let’s try to keep focused on that. The question is whether there is a legitimate chance for Cruz to win outright and I’m not sure there is. I serious doubt that Rubio can either.
Try to avoid making this a Cruz vs. Rubio thing. I know it’s hard, but I’m trying to keep the discussion focused on “how can NeverTrump win” not how can Tarheel see that Rubio is humiliated and Cruz wins. Save that for some other forum.
Dave, the problem with your “unbiased” analysis is the fact that you have been a Rubio supporter ever since you chose a candidate. Your dislike for Cruz is equally damaging to your ability to be unbiased. Of course Tarheel struggles to be unbiased as well, because he has been a Cruz supporter ever since Scott Walker dropped out. I reluctantly chose Cruz in the Virginia primary. I have a hard time getting excited about him. But I thought he was toast when he announced his candidacy at LU. Even until very recently I saw no possible way for him to get the nomination. But he has defied my expectations in every way. Saturday showed that he is the anti-Trump candidate of choice. I have to assume that him continuing to defy expectations is the only way to possibly avoid a contested convention with someone other than Trump as the nominee. A contested convention where the nomination is “taken from” Trump is a disaster scenario. He will run 3rd party and you can practice saying Madam President Clinton. If #neverTrump is your only goal then perhaps a contested convention is okay and your scenario works. But if #neverTrump and #neverClinton are both taken into consideration, Marco Rubio and John Kasich suspending their campaigns a week ago after the Super Tuesday votes were tallied was the best option. They have both chosen their own political aspirations over the hope of #neverTrump. I don’t hate them for doing it. I may have done the same thing were I in their shoes. But that is the reality of the situation as it now stands. It may be too late to stop Trump without a contested convention which will be a disaster.
Primaries are extremely difficult to predict even in predictable years. Delegate allocations can be convoluted and the ebb and flow of campaigns winning and losing influence later votes. I looked at the primaries going forward and tried to look at some scenarios of delegate allocations (do not ask what I did, I essentially guessed while sticking with the winner-take-all receiving everything in those primaries and assuming no one breaks the threshold for trigger winner take all). What I think I see:
1) There is a very slim chance for Cruz to win the nomination outright. Everything must line up, and he must win a few underdog races. He also most likely needs to win Florida or Ohio. Superdelegates might be able to throw him over the edge if he got close.
2) A brokered convention is a very real possibility, even if Trump wins Florida and Ohio (the momentum gained and the media’s talk of inevitability would be the harder things to overcome).
Given the above scenarios, I think the NeverTrump should play for the brokered convention Although Cruz could win outright, it will be a very difficult battle, even if Kasich and Rubio dropped out (I don’t think all of their supporters will go to Trump by the way). A brokered convention is most likely if Rubio and Kasich do well and draw delegates away from Trump. This means Rubio needs to do well somewhere tomorrow or else folks will give up on him and hand Trump Florida.
For a Cruz outright win he needs to win Florida or Ohio. According to the polls, he’s got a lot of ground to make up (the difference between him and Trump is HUUUUUUGE. Sorry had to throw it in.) in both states. If I had to pick one, I would choose Florida. It’s got a closed primary meaning less crossover Trumpites coming in, and I think Rubio’s star is falling.
If you’re pulling for the brokered convention, I think he’s best off letting Kasich and Rubio play for those two states cause they have a much better chance and the odds are slim of him beating Trump in either one. I would focus resources on the other states voting on that day, hoping to win a few and take attention away from Trump.
BTW, per Dave’s last comment (March 7, 9:11 pm), ” There is absolutely NO WAY that Cruz will win at a brokered convention. He’s only slightly more popular among establishment Republicans than Trump, so if he manages to get a split, he’s toast.” I somewhat agree (although delegates will most likely be biased for their own and he would have the second most delegates after Trump). Which means that Cruz has to play for the outright win not the brokered convention thus impacting his strategy as opposed to the NeverTrump strategy.
Should say, “(even if Kasich and Rubio drop out, I don’t think all their supporters will go to Cruz.)” I think a lot of people would be surprised how many would default to the leading candidate and how many don’t like Cruz either, thus staying home or voting Trump.
I doubt it. I think most of the people are looking for an evangelical (or at least a solid conservative) alternative to Trump and they can’t decide between Rubio or Cruz so they are both getting the votes. If Rubio drops out, the vast majority of his supporters would jump on the Cruz bandwagon and Trump would be toast. It would fulfill the No-Trump objective in a decidedly patriotic American fashion; much more so than a brokered convention.
I have serious doubts about Cruz’ ability to appeal beyond tea party and evangelicals he’s appealed to so far. Can he win beyond that?
You know how us left winger/liberals think, Bill.
I do know how you left winger/liberals think. However, I have heard from a few secular conservatives that have indicated that they would vote for either Trump or Cruz. They refuse to vote for Rubio because of the amnesty thing. I think that will dog him for the remainder of his political career.
At first I thought “super” was “supper”… Now I’m hungry. :-\
Nice.
NeverTrump is not on any states ballot. This strategic premise discussion is self defeating, and only advances what you are most against. In a republic electoral election you have to stand for someone and that persons expressed principles.
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. … ”
— George Washington
So then, you will not feel that defeating Hillary Clinton is important? Is that hate?
Seeing someone as an enemy of democracy (clearly, Trump is) and of decency (no doubt Trump is) and of what is good in America (he is everything that is wrong) and opposing him – is that hatred?
Then I assume you will NEVER speak a negative word about Obama, about Hillary, or about anyone else? Or is it only a candidate you support that we cannot speak against?
I have no issue with someone speaking against a candidate I support. I actually welcome the civil discourse our founding father gave us the rights to have. NeverTrump is a ghost not a candidate. NeverTrump is not on any ballot. NeverTrump is a #hastag.
I went to a Ford dealership they told me never to buy a Toyota and gave me many reasons. Never told me why I should buy a Ford. I went to the Toyota dealership they said Ford makes good cars and showed me what they considered advantages of their cars.
Politics is like Consumerism. Sell a product not a ghost.
1. Rubio needs to get out now for the good of the party and for his own political future.
2. John Kasich would undoubtedly make the best president of any of the candidates…too bad the election is not about who would make a good president.
3. Trump should, if he really cares about America, on April 1st, drop out of the race and let us all know that it was just a big joke, to proove he could do it.
Somehow, this plays more like a stump speech than actual analysis or discussion.
Analysis on #1: Rubio is sliding down, and is in danger of losing florida, which would be an embarrasment for him, and would also all but guarantee trump wins Florida. If Rubio drops out before florida, Cruz can win florida.
Analysis on #2: Kasich seems to be the only one not acting and speaking like a middle schooler. However, related to #1, If he want’s to block trump, he should also drop out before Florida. Even winning Ohio will not get him the nomination. However, a Cruz/Kasich ticket would be a strong opposition to Trump.
Analysis on #3: You heard it here first: I tentatively predict on April 1st, Trump announcing that his campaign was an April Fools joke to expose the silliness of politics. He will the throw his support behind Hillary Clinton. 😉
Do you honestly believe Cruz can win Fla? I’ve not really seen anyone making that prediction.
I’m not a big fan of Cruz, but if I thot he was “the one” I’d go for it. I’m afraid the math her is against him.
If he takes down Rubio, he may take himself down in the process. He gas to do it, though, since a brokered convention is not going to be a winner for him.
The candidates are about winning, not about beating Trump. That, to me, is unfortunate. Had Rubio and Cruz made an alliance earlier they might have been able to win the nomination. But they both wanted to win, so they’ve assured mutual destruction, I’m afraid.
I’m at the point where I doubt a successful NeverTrump outcome other than a brokered convention.
I believe if trump and cruz were the only one’s left, cruz would win florida.
If Rubio & Trump were alone, Rubio MIGHT win florida.
I predict trump will win florida if all stays as it is now.
You are right that Rubio & Cruz both going for the win will result in Trump winning.
Kasich gets to sound like the “adult” up there because the other 3 know that he is irrelevant to the race at this point. He gets no tough questions* from the moderators and receives no attacks or pushback from the other candidates because they know that he is the O’Malley of the GOP race.
*I should note that Kasich did receive one tough question the other night regarding his comments on religious liberty. He totally botched it. He said the exact opposite of what he had said in the previous debate and attempted to play it off as no big deal.
“He said the exact opposite of what he had said in the previous debate and attempted to play it off as no big deal.”
Isn’t this what qualifies one to be president? 🙂
You guys are so far off base on this. We don’t have to stop Mr. Trump, President Obama will. He has no intention of leaving office. He’s already said he’s staying in D.C. – just for the kids. Yeah, right! Look for the demons of hell to be unleashed in the next ten months.
I hope you are joking.
Yes, Dave, I hope so too, however, I have always been uneasy about Obama’s real intentions. Rubio is correct when he says Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. When we consider all that Obama has done to weaken this country, the picture is scary. I fear the worst is yet to come. (Sorry for the gloom and doom.)
Below are what I see as the most likely scenarios in this election. These are not listed in order of what I want to happen. I hope I’m wrong. Again, all of these assume that Hillary will in fact be the nominee, and she will be unless something truly dramastic happens. And no, dramastic is not in the dictionary but I like it and no matter what he may claim, Trump does not “have the best words” because he doesn’t have that one.
1) Trump wins the nomination, most Republicans decide to play nice and try to support him, but he gets defeated by Clinton in the general election. This would be especially bad if enough conservatives stay home and don’t vote in the down-ballot Senate races, costing the GOP its hold in that chamber. If that happens, it would be better for Obama to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat now. A judicial nominee squeezed through this year would be bad, but maybe less disastrous than a Clinton nominee greased through a Democratic Senate.
2) Trump wins the nomination, conservatives leave to support a third option, and Clinton wins the general election. The conservatives will be blamed for splitting the vote, despite the facts that a) Trump would likely lose anyway and b) the Trumpers were the ones who insisted on voting for him in the primaries knowing full well that he’s unacceptable to the conservatives in the party.
3) Trump goes to the GOP convention with only a plurality of delegates, a brokered convention gives us another nominee, the Trumpers blame the “establishment” for ignoring the “voice of the people”, Trump runs third party or his fans stay home, and Clinton wins the general election.
4) Another GOP candidate gets hot and wins the nomination outright, Trump still runs third party and/or mad Trumpers stay home, and Clinton wins the general election.
5) Another GOP candidate wins the nomination, Trump and his supporters get on board, and Clinton is narrowly defeated in the general election.
6) Least likely of all, one of the scenarios in 1-4 happens but something so dramastic happens to Clinton (something genuinely unlikely — say, she’s caught on camera sacrificing a puppy to Kanye West or she actually gets indicted by the DOJ) that Trump wins the general election.
I think every scenario but 5 is very bad.
Except you don’t factor into #5 the same vitriol of those for Trump or Cruz (should he get bush-wacked) that the #NeverTrump crowd shows. For if we of the #NeverGOPEstablishment crowd show the same vitriol against you that you show for us, then your #5 blows up in your face.
Because Rubio, Kasich, or any other GOP Establishment candidate yet to be named has no chance of winning. See history for the examples: Dole, McCain, and Romney
Nate, scenario 5 specifically assumes that the Trump and #NeverGOPEstablishment crowd does in fact fully support the #NeverTrump nominee. It’s one of the less likely scenarios, which is why it’s so far down the list.
Kasich might be closest to Dole, McCain, and Romney, but I don’t think Rubio really fits that mold. The thing about Kasich is that he probably would govern as a level-headed conservative regarding most fiscal and foreign policy issues. I think he’s a competent executive. He just comes across as too squishy on social issues such as religious liberty. He did a better job on that topic in the last debate — better than Trump who didn’t (paraphrasing here) “have much to say about that.”
Umm, so essentially Jeff doesn’t factor into #5 that #4 might happen?
Now, to specifically answer Dave’s discussion questions:
1) No, I think it’s quite unlikely that Cruz wins in OH or FL.
2) No, I wouldn’t say Cruz’s involvement in OH and FL “guarantees” a Trump victory in those states, though it makes it more likely.
3-4) Yes, Cruz has a path to victory. Even if he doesn’t secure an outright win in the primary season, he may get enough delegates on his own to force a contested convention anyway, and he may have a better shot of winning a contested convention if he finishes a close second to Trump and has forced the other guys out.
5) A contested convention is probably bad. It will incite the Trump crowd. But it’s probably NeverTrump’s best shot. The question is: what’s the best way to prevent Trump from gathering a delegate majority so we can get to a contested convention? Is it for Rubio and Kasich to win FL and OH respectively? Or is it for Cruz to continue to gather momentum and do damage in the other remaining states? Either way, nobody is likely to back off at this point. And I can’t say it’s necessarily “selfish” for them not to do so. Each candidate still has a path to the nomination, and each can make a case that he is the best shot to beat Hillary in the general election. I hope we at least avoid an outright Trump win in the primary season, and I hope the Trump supporters get behind the nominee if there is a contested convention.
“I hope the Trump supporters get behind the nominee if there is a contested convention.”
So, you think Trump or Cruz supporters should get behind the GOP Establishment hand-picking a candidate at a brokered convention when the #NeverTrump crowd is adamant about refusing to vote for him should he win the nomination out-right? The #NeverTrump crowd would rather see Hillary elected just to prove their point, but they want Trump supporters be “good soldiers” of the Establishment. Give me a break!
“The #NeverTrump crowd would rather see Hillary elected just to prove their point”
I didn’t vote for Mitt Romney. I refused to do so because I wanted to make a point. My refusal to vote for Trump has nothing to do with proving a point. It is about principle.
Adam, of course it’s your principle. Everyone’s vote (or non-vote) is their principled choice. But make no mistake, a non-vote carries just as much weight in States that could go either way. While a non-vote in Texas probably doesn’t matter as much, one in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and a few other states matter a great deal.
When a “conservative” chooses not to vote in a State that is “Up-for-grabs” they are still voting. So if you “principles” allow for the other party’s candidate to win because of your non-vote, fair enough. Principles matter, but they still have repercussions.
I believe that Donald Trump is just as much of a disaster for this country as Hillary Clinton, just in a different way. I will never understand why I should feel obligated to vote for one of those two candidates when I feel that way. Btw, I did vote in 2012. There were quite a few candidates on the ballot.
Nate: They do see how many people vote. Not voting does get noticed.
Not that it matters what non-voting does….I will follow my convictions which is if there is a Trump vs. Hilary vote I will not vote at all.
I don’t agree that the NeverTrump crowd “would rather see Hillary elected just to prove their point.” Most NeverTrump folks that I know have genuine convictions of conscience that prevent them from supporting either Trump or Hillary.
That’s a completely fictional statement Jeff. See my response to Adam directly above your post.
What did I say that is “completely fictional”?
Make no mistake, a non-vote carries just as much weight in States that could go either way. While a non-vote in Texas probably doesn’t matter as much, one in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and a few other states matter a great deal.
When a “conservative” chooses not to vote in a State that is “Up-for-grabs” they are still voting. So if you “principles” allow for the other party’s candidate to win because of your non-vote, fair enough. Principles matter, but they still have repercussions.
So you can’t stay home (or vote for a 3rd party who has no chance) and say you aren’t voting against Trump should he be nominated.
Let’s say you are a first-century Jew. It’s Passover, and Pilate offers to set free either a popular convicted murderer or a less-popular convicted rapist. There is a minority group of citizens who are petitioning Pilate to set free an innocent rabbi who was arrested for political reasons. (For theological simplicity, let’s assume it’s not Jesus this year.) This group refuses to vote for either criminal, their petition is unsuccessful, the murderer wins the vote, and he goes on to murder other people. The Jews who voted for the rapist blame the murder of these people on the petitioners who abstained from voting. Is their accusation just?
You seem to imply that by not voting nobody will be set free. Someone will win the election, your vote or non-vote in a state that is “up-for-grabs” will have an impact. Period!
“So you can’t stay home (or vote for a 3rd party who has no chance) and say you aren’t voting against Trump should he be nominated.”
Who said they wouldn’t be voting against Trump by voting for a 3rd party? If the Democrat choice is Hillary and the Republican choice is Trump, I will vote against both by voting 3rd party. And I will do so based on principle, and with a clear conscience.
Ok, let me add to the hypothetical just to make it clearer. Someone will be set free. And let’s say that if a majority of Jews could be persuaded to join the petition, Pilate would actually release the innocent rabbi. However, the rabbi is even less popular than either the rapist or murderer. There is precious little chance that the petition will succeed. If these petitioners were to cast their votes for the rapist, however, they would tip the balance in his favor. Are the petitioners at fault for maintaining their principled stand?
I believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be horrific so as to outstrip the phantasms of our most troubling nightmares. She would set back the pro-life cause terribly. She would set back the cause of religious liberty terribly. She would advance socialism. We have every reason to believe that her foreign policy would be as disastrous as President Obama’s, since she was his Secretary of State and developed much of his foreign policy. Every bad thing you imagine that she would do, she would do.
Now, Nate, having said all of that, and believing every word of it, I think that it should say something to you when I tell you that my refusal to vote for Trump does not amount to my trying to “make a point.” No, rather, it’s that as bad as I absolutely know a Hillary Clinton presidency would be, I can’t see that a Trump presidency would be one iota better. Indeed, I can imagine ways that it could be worse.
Trump is not pro-life. He absolutely would not enact pro-life laws or appoint pro-life justices. He supports Planned Parenthood, and even says that while running for the GOP nomination! What will his view on life be when he runs in the general? When he takes office?
Trump is not pro-religious-liberty. He’s prepared to impose religious tests for immigration and to force people to register their religious affiliation with the government. He said that Christian missionaries to West Africa should have to “suffer the consequences” of having been serving over there when Ebola broke out be being denied permission to return to the United States. “Suffer the consequences” of being a missionary!?? As though that’s some sort of misdeed!?
Trump is a boorish, misogynistic, xenophobic, plutocratic bully who has built an entire campaign around boorishness, misogyny, xenophobia, and plutocracy. He would advance cronyism as an economic system and “I’m rubber; you’re glue” as diplomacy.
I cannot think of a single weakness Hillary Clinton has that Donald Trump does not share equally. And he amazingly is able to find ways to be a horrible choice for the presidency that Hillary Clinton hasn’t even imagined yet. Who knew this was possible?
So no, I’m not voting for Donald Trump. Trying to keep Hillary Clinton out of the presidency is a noble goal, unless one is electing Vladimir Putin as the alternative. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Voting for Trump to forestall Hillary is a case in point.
You should consider becoming a blogger, Bart.
I did not vote for Trump in the primary, but I can see some differences between him and Mrs. Clinton that would cause me to vote for Trump.
1. The President, as head of the executive branch, has great power over executive agencies. That is where most “law” is made now. I believe Trump is likely to pull back on job-killing actions of the EPA, the education grab by the Education Department, be less likely to promote Department of Labor regulations that have the effect of stifling religious expression in the workplace. I have only touched on a couple of the agencies. But there are many others, and I believe that Trump would run the executive branch in a less ideological way and more toward common sense economic interests.
2. Foreign policy. The current status of Russia in the world is completely due to the “reset” button that Obama and Hillary pushed with Putin. The annexation of the Crimea, the trouble in Ukraine and other actions all stem from Putin’s correct assessment of Obama and Clinton as weak. Russia is the only one mentioned here, but Clinton can be counted on to continue Obama’s foreign policy, since it was hers also.
3. Executive Orders. Need I say more? I believe that Trump would be likely to sift through Obama’s overreach, and rescind many of his executive orders. I do not believe that Hillary will do so.
4. The enforcement of current immigration law. We have laws on the books now that the people’s representatives passed, and were signed into law. They are being ignored. Forget the “wall”. I have no comfort that Mrs. Clinton will faithfully execute the law in this area. I believe that Trump would at least begin to enforce existing immigration laws and at least return us to being law abiding.
5. Defense of U.S. interests. I believe that Trump will engage in a more robust defense of U.S. interests abroad. It’s hard to know where this will lead as all of the challenges are not in front of us. “Leading from behind” will not be a standard for Trump. I also do not believe that he will follow through on the Iran deal, to the extent possible.
6. Defense at home. I believe that Trump is less likely to pander to movements that are anti-police, especially if they arise out of hoaxes. I do not believe that Trump will be likely to use the Justice Department to remake law enforcement in this nation in such a way as to make our nation a more dangerous place.
7. The Debt. 19 Trillion. I am not sure that any politician can even speak about this clearly. I believe, however, that Trump would be more cooperative with the legislative branch to reduce spending, where possible. This is an impossible issue, and one that may eventually kill us.
8. Socialism. I believe that Trump is less likely to be a socialist. Sanders is an avowed one. Clinton is an unavowed one. Trump will certainly reward his friends, but I suspect he may be better.
9. Trade. I do not know how to handicap this. Each major party has factions that are more free trade, and factions that are more protectionist.
10. The Courts. I believe that Trump will be more likely to pick from a pool of jurists who are more conservative. Hillary can be guaranteed to select from the most radical.
These are just some random thoughts about differences.
I don’t see Trump as a savior, but I do perceive substantive differences that would cause me to select Trump.
Good stuff, Bart.
Louis,
“I did not vote for Trump in the primary, but I can see some differences between him and Mrs. Clinton that would cause me to vote for Trump.”
My primary is next week, so I haven’t voted yet. Most likely Cruz. The rest of what you wrote here makes good sense. If Trump is the eventual nominee, I plan to vote for him. I cannot see how he could be worse than what we’ve endured for 7 plus years nor what we would get from Hillary. She is a very known quantity on any and every issue. Trump not so much, but his talk is at least better than O or H.
There are plausible if not compelling arguments to be made on both sides of the Hillary vs Donald general election choice- a truly horrible prospect.
This is why thinking Christians who happen to be registered Republicans voting in primaries, must say “Never Trump” with their votes and pray much for Gods mercy on this nation.
1. Yes, Trump would be likely to use executive overreach to reward business rather than penalize it. I think that’s a good thing.
2. Putin: Trump said that Obama’s foreign policy was TOO TOUGH on Putin, and that we should be more accommodating of Putin. “What do we need trouble for?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjo4u88no7U
3. Executive Orders: I do not believe that Trump, accustomed to executive government by fiat in his corporate endeavors, will suddenly abandon executive government by fiat upon entering elective office. What did he say about military officers who would refuse to carry out his immoral and illegal orders to commit war crimes? “I’ll force them to do it.” This is someone more apt to exercise restraint in his use of executive power????
4. Yes, I think it is more likely that Trump will deport people. Would you count it as a plus if he enforced all of the present immigration laws and then further denied missionaries permission to return to the country and then barred people from the country whose religion didn’t meet his personal approbation?
5 & 6. National Defense. A guy who blames 9-11 on George W. Bush knows how to defend the country???
7. The Debt: Here’s Donald Trump (not) getting specific about what he would do to reduce the national debt.
8. Socialism: Agreed.
9. Trade: What Trump has said and what he has done are two different things.
10. Supreme Court: Trump supports Planned Parenthood, has contributed to pro-abortion causes all of his life, and has had a sudden “conversion” to conservative jurisprudence right about the time that he decided to run for president through the GOP.
I’m not trying to fight; I’m just trying to explain why I’m not at all convinced.
Very good Bart.
Forrest and I have one thing in common, we are not smart men, well two, we like chocolate, but I fail to see how if Cruz helps Rubio in Florida and Rubio can win that the reciprocal would not be true. CBS has the polls at 38% Trump, 30% Rubio and 17% Cruz. I have read millions of times, it seems, that none of the support of Cruz, Rubio, Kasich would go to Trump if one of these guys dropped out. If 30 + 17 is more than 38 then 17 + 30 is more than 38. The best strategy for a NeverTrump win is for Rubio to stand on the stage tonight in Dade County, Florida and say I am pulling out and ask you to support Ted Cruz for president.
This is not the best strategy for a NeverTrumpbutIreallywantRubio win.
Bingo.
Are you bingoing I am not a smart man?
I agree with everything you said. 🙂
Exactly! Dean.
Sorry, guys, if my word isn’t good enough, it isn’t good enough, but the fact that I supported Rubio isn’t the issue now. This is not about finding a path for Rubio to the nomination.
I’ve pretty much abandoned hope of a Rubio win. I don’t think either Cruz or Rubio are going to head the ticket this time. If Rubio won Florida and there was some sort of amazing bounce from that, but I don’t see it happening.
I don’t like Cruz much, but I was ready to hold my nose and put a sign in my yard until I became convinced that there may not be a legitimate path to victory for him either. Had he and Rubio formed a rebel alliance a week or two ago, perhaps, but now, it’s too late.
The best hope now for NeverTrump is to keep him from the 166 delegates in Ohio and Florida by Kasich and Rubio wins. Of course, that gives a boost to both of those guys, who probably should have dropped out the day after SuperTuesday. But if they win, they are in it for the long haul.
Cruzites seem convinced he can win Fla – I’ve heard no one but partisans suggest that. I don’t believe it. The question is whether Rubio or Trump wins it. Yes, I’d rather have Rubio win it.
Of course, if he wins it, he’s not dropping out then, he’s crowing about his Marcomentum again.
Trump got lucky this year – the 16 candidates split votes long enough for him to keep his “frontrunner” status and the aura of invincibility while polling between 25% and 35%.
And I certainly agree that Dean isn’t that smart.
Dave, somewhere in this menagerie of blogs is one where you said the loser of Rubio/Cruz on Super Tuedsay should withdraw, unite with the winner and defeat Trump.
Your powers of influence convinced me you were correct; Rubio should withdraw and call on his support to vote for Cruz. Your insight is brilliant.
No, you are right. I put that up as a post.
It didn’t happen.
I also read/listened to some OP that said that was a horrible idea. They convinced me that the best anti-Trump strategy is to keep all the guys in the race, at least until after March 15. If Cruz does well today, then Kasich and Rubio win next Tuesday, the Trump nightmare may be over, then those guys can slug it out.
Can you believe that presidential candidates didn’t follow my advice?
Dave, I am missing something.
You agree that if Rubio and Cruz had combined forces a couple of weeks ago, it would have had a chance of stopping Trump. (btw – I believe I advocated a couple of weeks ago that Rubio should get out and support Cruz, but I did not see any takers)
But now you don’t believe that Rubio and Cruz should combine forces because it won’t work now.
What has happened to change the calculation in the last 2 weeks?
If it would have been a good idea 2 weeks ago, why did you and others not bite on it then.
I am not fussing at you, but really trying to understand.
Timing is everything. Too many delegates have gone out now.
Plus, I think it’s too late for Cruz to get it together and win Florida. Florida really seems key to me. 100 delegates (or 99 – I’ve seen both #) winner-take-all.
If NeverTrump is going to win, Florida needs to be a firewall. Had they joined forces 2 weeks ago, it might have been possible. Now, it’s likely too late.
All of this is conjecture, feeling. I did a pretty good job of calling and predicting the IOWA thing. I know Iowa pretty well. But the rest of this has been a mystery to me. Mind-boggling.
I keep thinking, people are going to realize what a buffoon Trump is, and they don’t. I thought Rubio would surge, he faded. So, I’m not putting any money on my predictions.
I read some people who said the Rubio/Cruz or Cruz/Rubio alliance would NEVER have worked. I don’t know. But it seems now that the best way to beat Trump is to hold the line in Florida and Ohio, and having Rubio and Kasich IN is better for that.
Would I rather be able to vote Rubio against Hillary in November? Of course.
I’d be happy, at this point, to vote for Cruz against Hillary, as little as I like Cruz.
But I’d be willing to vote for Ryan if I had to, or maybe they resurrect Scott Walker, or glory be, maybe Ben Sasse (not likely). Romney? Yuk. But better than Trump.
Shoot, I’d rather see Mitch McConnell on the ballot than Donald Trump!
What happened is Super Tuesday happened, followed by the primaries on Saturday. Although Cruz did well in the primaries to show that he is the definitive second place candidate, he did not win enough delegates to put him on a recognizable path to winning the nomination outright. Also he and Rubio did not do well enough to blunt Trump’s momentum such that at this juncture there is indication of him winning enough primaries to get the nomination (this is more Rubio’s failure as he needed to win a couple of primaries and steal away more delegates). After today’s primary results are in I might change my tune (I will not speak for Dave) and after next week it might change again. We have to respond to the situation as it is today, not where it was two weeks ago or where we want it to be next week.
Dave, I don’t think anyone is questioning your integrity (at least I’m not), but the nature of having a bias is that it is often not as evident to the one with the bias as those around them. The same can be said about Tarheel. He is biased toward Cruz. You have accurately pointed that out. He’s not much willing to acknowledge the bias. But your bias toward Rubio and against Cruz is equally clear.
You keep saying that no one is talking about Cruz being able to win Florida. That is because we have a 4 man race and he is in third according to the polls. Yes, Rubio has a chance of winning Florida even with 4 people in the race. Cruz does not. But if it were just Trump and Cruz, I believe Cruz would win Florida. If Rubio and Kasich dropped out a week ago (as they should have) I think Cruz would have a good chance in both Florida and Ohio. Cruz kicked butt on Saturday. He has gained momentum despite there being still 4 people in the race. If Rubio and Kasich were gone, that momentum would only increase.
Let’s all admit we cannot predict the future. We can, however “predict the past”. Surprise happens.
Consider this about Rubio. Just one week ago EVERYONE was saying he could not win Florida because he was 20 points behind Trump. Now he is 8 points behind . . . in the polls, and the polls have been way off.
Also, I notice that Cruz is now adjusting his schedule to include Florida events. Cruz is shrewd. He would not waste his time. If he was certain Rubio was going to lose Florida, he would not be going to Florida.
Also, we have just learned that the early voting went to Rubio in a landslide. That is not indicative of widespread revulsion due to amnesty.
Also, Puerto Rico went for Rubio big time. You might say “Of course they did – no one else went there. No one else speaks Spanish as well. Puerto Rico is small potatoes and doesn’t matter.” etc. But do not overlook the fact that most Puerto Ricans have very close relatives in Florida, and they talk often.
Finally, do not discount the fact that the same is true about Miami Dade residents. They too have friends all over the state, and Miami Dade is going for Rubio lock, stock and barrel.
There is also the Florida/Texas connection. While they think alike, there is also a rivalry. How that plays out between Cruz/Rubio support is anyone’s guess.
My point is not about why anyone should vote for Rubio. I am not touting Rubio. My point is that common sense does not rule the day. There is manifold evidence of that, especially this cycle. Things are going to happen that we did not see coming. Malcolm Gladwell’s next head-slapping book might well be about this election, and how things happened no one predicted. One of those things could be that Rubio wins Florida.
If he does, things change, and maybe in a big way. We will see.
Finally, since I have seen a Washington quote above, I will add another about predicaments such as the one we face in this cycle, and for which the Republican party is being blamed. Winston Churchill said:
“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
Of course Puerto Rico went for Rubio.
That’s Rubio’s problem!!!
He is seen as wanting the entire Southern Hemisphere to move to the U.S.
His Gang of 8 bill is what killed him.
Puerto Rico only proves they liked the Gang of 8 bill. That will actually hurt him in other states, I believe.
Tarheel and others are right.
Rubio is the one who should get out. His performance is not improving, but getting worse.
Cruz is a flawed nominee for a Nevertrump perspective because his appeal is limited.
But with Rubio out, the Nevertrump people will have to vote for Cruz. So as unpopular as Cruz is with the establishment and the Nevertrumps, if Nevertrump is the real goal, that is easily achievable with Rubio out. The anti trump forces would coalesce, vote for Cruz and beat Trump.
But that is not acceptable to many anti trump people. That is because as much as they don’t like Trump and that motivates them greatly, they are, in my opinion, equally or more motivated by other goals than Nevertrump.
They have another goal that conflicts with Nevertrump. It is to also see that their guy or someone they think will do better in the general election gets the nomination.
This goal does not harmonize well with Nevertrump. Nevertrump can be achieved with 2 major candidates going head to head.
The Nevertrumps are taking a big risk of not coalescing around 1 anti trump candidate now because they hope that will produce s brokered convention where their guy or some guy other than Cruz can get the nomination.
So, if you want to stop Trump, the safest and best bet is to get Rubio out now, get behind Cruz and increase the chances of denying Trump victories in FL or OH.
Gambling on some other tactic makes a Trump win more likely.
Yep.
I don’t know. I’ve come to believe the best hope for NeverTrump is a brokered convention.
I see here again statements to the effect of real (or good) Christians cannot vote for Trump.
That is so contrary to the teaching of the Gospel it is hard to believe that people say such things.
Any church that would permit its pastor or other teachers to say such things in church during the time for the preaching and teaching of God’s word is missing the boat.
My pastor has a higher calling than that and would not take the time to do something like that.
It’s fine and right for the church to speak about principles and truth from the scriptures that may have political implication. But it’s easy to veer off that.
Think of all the churches that read the Sermon on the Mount and conclude, and teach in their pulpits, that socialism, progressivism, or liberalism is mandated by Christ.
We rightfully condemn churches that do that.
Well, why should we then “add” to the Gospel and Christian living by saying that true disciples will only vote for this or that candidate, or vote against this or that candidate?
This kind of thinking is a poison that is being injected into the life blood of many churches and ministries right now, much to their own detriment and to the dishonor of the Lord.
Saying, “I will not vote for candidate ‘A’ because of my Christian faith,” is not the same as saying, “You cannot be a Christian if you vote for candidate ‘A’.” I have not seen where anyone here said the latter.
I am sorry to jump in at this point. I do not intend to be argumentative; it’s simply that the logic didn’t follow. It is like saying all squares are rectangles therefore all rectangles are squares.
I offer this as a comparison: I am a Christian. I cannot eat pork or shellfish as a matter of conscience. In no way does it follow that all Christians must abstain or they are not Christians (that would wipe out almost the entire population of believing Americans. Lol!). My conscience dictates what I can do *in faith*. For me, it would be sin; I cannot eat in good conscience, but someone else may not have that hindrance.
Perhaps my voice is entirely unnecessary; nonetheless, I want to urge everyone to have compassion towards each other’s consequence. Please, let us show love to our weaker brothers. We are going to be known by our love for each other and it will be as a light in the darkness. I think God will honour what we week do in faith and in good conscience. We ought not be a stumbling block to our brothers.
I have to admit, Louis, that I wonder about the spiritual judgment and discernment of someone who supports Trump.
That may be wrong, but when a candidate is a vile as he is, as anti-Christian in just about every way, I shake my head and wonder how any Christian person could even consider supporting him.
So, while I agree in theory that we shouldn’t consign people to hell or question their salvation for how they vote, I have to admit that I question the discernment and biblical wisdom of people who look at this man and think, “He should lead our country.”
Dave, you wouldn’t be human if you did not think that way.
We all make judgments about things we think are good and things we think are bad.
In politics, these judgments are all weighed against other candidates and other interests.
I really can’t say it any better than Jonathan Leeman said it. I know I have linked to this before, but with your permission, I will do so again.
http://9marks.org/mailbag/32/
This really is worth a read.
Louis: To my knowledge we have never had anyone so vile as Donald Trump run for office except David Duke who was quickly dismissed, so not even a consideration. I too have a huge problem with those who want to vote Trump in office. I question who they really are inside.
And I don’t apologize for speaking out and am glad some in the church leadership are speaking out. I think it is honoring to Christ to do so. We are to stand against such things.
Hillary is every bit as evil as Trump and you don’t seem to feel led to say anything about her.
Debbie,
You’ve never seen a POLITICIAN as vile and wicked as Trump? Really? Have you checked out the Clinton’s past? I’ve known of many Politicians, who were living wicked, vile lives, and who believed wicked and vile things. You must live a very sheltered life, or else you’re exaggerating.
BTW, I did NOT vote for Trump. I am not a fan of Trump.
David
I should clarify since of course Dems are being put in my statement. In the Republican party.
We all have a tendency to exaggerate, to see the now as “the best ever” or “the worst ever.”
When you see people talking about today’s negative campaigning as if it is the worst ever, that’s just ignorant of history. The stuff today is lightweight compared to what went on in campaigns in the past. And Trump as the “most vile ever.”
Well, I’m no Trump fan (I think I’ve proven that) and I will never vote for him for anything. But he’s probably not the worst ever. There’ve been a few stinkers in the USA family tree.
Trump is unfit for leadership. Worst person ever? Maybe not.
And you and others do have a point Dave. I know I know, but it’s true.
George Wallace ran for President, and before Civil and women’s rights movement, Presidents that were pro-KKK etc. so yes, even in my lifetime there were some pretty bad people who went pretty far in the polls and were almost on the ballot.
I should be in bed. I am not feeling well tonight, just woke up and did make that comment without remembering.
I’m sorry to hear that you aren’t feeling well. I know that we have had our differences, but I sincerely pray that you will feel better soon.
Adam:
I agree, as you have stated it.
But what is being stated is directed toward the sincerity and maturity of the faith of others.
Here is a comment from this very blog post:
“It should be unconscionable for a born-again disciple of Christ to even consider voting for Trump in the GOP primaries.”
Tell me what you think of that.
This is just today. All you have to do is peruse the internet for 5 minutes or check your own FB page and you will see this replicated many times over.
Let me clarify the post and comments I stand by in declaring support or a vote for Trump in the GOP primaries as unconscionable.
Though unconscionable may be a strong word, let me ask; can a Christian sin by being consciously unwise or undiscerning (Pro. 1)? if so, then how do we explain a biblically-based Christian voting for Trump, considering Trump’s history as prologue to his present?
Has Trump (as recent a convert to “conservatism” as has ever existed) demonstrated any sort of track record as to espousing policies that jive at all with scriptural principles? Have his recorded beliefs and behaviors ever corresponded to his populist, arrogant and crude rhetoric?
I would love to dialogue with a Christian who has sought the scriptures and wisdom prayerfully, to justify their vote for Trump. Perhaps I may learn something along the way.
I am not a trump supporter, but I can imagine someone who truly believes another abortion-supporting Clinton in the white house would be terrible, and who also believes trump has the best shot of beating her. As such, that person may decide to vote for Trump in the primary. Many more would vote for trump in the general election for the same reason.
I see no reason to question the devotion to Christ of a Christian who makes either of those determinations.
Okay, honesty here.
I will never vote for Trump. EVER. For anything.
But if someone decides to vote for Trump against Hillary, I can at least process that. Fine. It’s a choice.
What I do not understand is people who look at the field of candidates we had in the GOP and say, “This degenerate is the best we’ve got.” I just don’t get that.
That’s what I’m getting at…
I don’t either at this point Andy in terms of a general election. That is a whole other controversy and issue.
My comment and contention is with
conscious Christians voting in the GOP primary for Trump over the more biblically based candidates. I have blogged on this more extensively on my blog, Deadpool for Presidesent at my captivethought.word press.com
My own Facebook page? I’m not sure what you are referring to.
Not you, Adam.
Another commenter posted what I wrote.
Okay, here’s the Millereality:
1. There is a minority of Trumpites – passionate and unwilling to consider anyone but Trump. They are absolutist in their support of him. He wasn’t kidding when he said he could shoot someone on 7th Avenue and they’d still support him – see Steve’s comments here.
This number hasn’t changed too much since about September. It’s dipped from time to time (giving this old codger hope) and swelled (sending fear surging through me) but seems to correct to the norm – somewhere in the 35% range.
2. The NON-Trump vote has coalesced around 3 guys now. The major vote-getter is Cruz, then Rubio, with Kasich lagging way behind. The NON-Trump candidates together are way ahead of Trump in delegate count. They have over 500, he’s in the 380s.
3. There are three or four more proportional primaries today – the delegate counts likely won’t change dramatically unless something stunning happens at the polls. The big thing is next Tuesday when Ohio and Florida primaries are contested, which are winner-take-all.
4. If Cruz could win Florida, he’d have a path to the nomination. I’ve not heard anyone but Cruz partisans say that’s a possibility.
5. Rubio, though trailing badly in polls, is actually leading by a huge margin in early voting in Florida, which pretty much takes away any incentive he has to get out. If he wins, he is back up close to Cruz (still in third, but the margin would be a lot less). He is throwing a Hail Mary pass.
6. If Trump wins BOTH Ohio and Florida, he’s likely to win the 1237 delegates he needs to get the nomination. If he loses both, he’s probably not. If he splits them (especially if it’s the 100 delegates of Florida he loses) it’s probably a wash.
7. Cruz is in a vice here and though he leads the NON-Trump delegate count, he’s also throwing a bit of a Hail Mary (perhaps from only 35 yards out, not 50 like Rubio). He’s trying to drive Rubio from the race to set up a 1 on 1 with Trump. But in driving out Rubio he risks giving the Donald a stranglehold on the nomination, essentially cutting off his nose to spite his face.
8) I’m regularly being accused of bias – and I have one. NeverTrump. The idea of having to choose between Trump and Hillary Clinton is disgusting. I want SOMEONE. I’m even willing to vote for a candidate I don’t like (shoot, I was willing to vote for CRUZ!) if I can have a non-Trump option. But I seriously doubt that when all is said and done, either Cruz or Rubio are going to be the nominee. It will either be Trump (Heaven spare us) or whomever the delegates at the convention choose.
NeverClinton. NeverSanders. NeverStayHome. NeverWriteIn.
I just wanted to see if that was any fun to type. Turns out, it is!
How about NoTrump? Of course, some of the crusty characters supporting Donald would read that as Not Rump and wonder what that meant. My favorite bumper sticker from the last election was NOBAMA, but hundreds of those on cars and signs in my area didn’t seem to have any effect on election day. I may write in my wife’s name this go around – she’s got more sense than any of those running … plus, I tell her all the time that she in one of the most godly men I know and ought to run for something!
What we are likely facing, if current trends hold and I hope they don’t, is a general election choice between wicked queen Jezebel on the one hand and crazy King Nebuchadnezzar on the other. Some choice. There doesn’t seem to me to be any realistic way to avoid this unless there are providential circumstances that intervene. But perhaps God will somehow give us the president we need rather than the one we deserve.
Nebuchadnezzar was restored to his kingdom fully sane and repentant. Even before his great sin (in which his insanity was a consequence) he was much beloved by Daniel, “may this happen to your enemies rather than you!” Jezebel was out thrown head first from a balcony and killed; her blood was licked up by dogs – she was beloved by no one.
If you go by your analogy then, there is hope for Nebuchadnezzar.
Rob
“Rubio, though trailing badly in polls, is actually leading by a huge margin in early voting in Florida…”
I’m curious, have they actually counted the early votes in Florida, or are you talking about data based on exit polls?
Thanks.
This is where the “early voting going to Rubio” statements come from:
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/03/07/rubio-leads-trump-big-in-early-florida-voting/
So, as I understand that:
The polls say:
1. the 20% of voters who have ALREADY voted say they voted Rubio by a 48 to 23 margin.
2. The others claim to favor Trump by a 42 to 26 margin.
And, the factor in that is that Trump’s polling has been consistently OVER-reported in almost every state. He regularly finishes under what his polls say he is going to get. Polls had him up by 20 points or so in all the states Saturday and he won two of them narrowly and lost to Cruz by wide margins in the other 2.
So, it would seem that Rubio has every reason to be encouraged by this poll. (And, as one who likes Rubio and loves NeverTrump I also find this encouraging).
If the early voting went the other way, I’m guessing the talk about Rubio getting out might have grown wings,.
Thanks. My question was a curiosity about how Florida counts early votes. Here in Texas, early votes are not counted until election day, and I assumed that would be true of most states. It’s not odd that folks like us might speak in these terms, but it does seem that journalists reporting on the election would be more clear that they are talking about polling data, rather than headlining in a way that implies early votes have already been counted. Then again, maybe I’m a lot too literal in my reading.
I was confused too.
I don’t’ think it is the COUNTING of early votes, but a poll.
In the poll, those who said they’d actually voted – 20% – said they’d gone for Rubio by 25% majority. The rest said they preferred Trump 42-26. I’m guessing Cruz was still down around 10 or 12%?
It is also significant that Florida is a closed primary. That tends to work in the favor of the non-Trump candidate (Cruz in some states, Rubio here).
On the other hand, in Iowa, people could register at the polls. Many did. There were a lot of Trump supporters who were signing up at the polls.
I will add that Trump seems to be losing some steam. I am not sure why that is. I suspect it may be because he has backed off some of his earlier statements.
We’ll see.
Maybe it’s because of the righteous opposition to him?
Bart:
Some good responses. I am on my phone so it’s hard to go back point by point.
What i was comparing is not Trump to other Republicans but to Clinton. You have pointed to Trump’s weaknesses and inconsistencies in a valid way, but on a continuum, it’s hard to argue that Hillary would be more mild on any of these points.
For me, on the socialism point alone, economic freedom, that a Trump Presidency would be superior to Mrs. Clinton.
I think that Ben Carson made a good point at NRB last week.
He said that he would support Trump over Clinton. He said that Clinton is a known negative. Trump is a question mark.
That’s how he phrased it and why he will support Trump if it’s Trump/Hillary.
It will also be interesting if the outspoken Protestants in the race, Huckaby, Carson, and Cruz, all support Trump if Trump gets the most delegates.
I’m not sure Trump’s near-fascism is any better than Clinton’s socialism.
Well, I guess there’s a whole lot of sinning going on in Mississippi. Trump is apparently routing on the evangelical vote.
They’re projecting Trump to win Michigan, as well.
Also, it looks like Rubio is coming in dead last
Yep, he won it. Now he is piece by piece refuting, very calmly BTW, Michigan’s own Romney. Trump water, steaks, magazine.
Talk about backfiring on the establishment.
And Rubio is done. Stick a fork in him.
Hold on a minute boys, Rubio is putting the wood to Dr Carson in MS by a 2 to 1 margin.
Wide is the road that leads to destruction.
Trump’s popularity is not proof of his righteousness.
It us amazing that Christians would imply that argument.
Dave,
“Trump’s popularity is not proof of his righteousness.
It us amazing that Christians would imply that argument.”
If you are referring to my comment, please know that that was not my intent or implication. My point is really that no matter what, evangelicals are supporting him in some significant numbers…and noting the sometimes inferences or outright statements questioning the Christian walk of Trump voters. I am not one who is supporting Trump, I repeat.
It looks like Rubio is in single digits in Michigan and Mississippi dropping support greatly from polls taken just a week ago. If he can’t win his home state then he will just be another ego driven politician you never hear from again. Sad, Rubio has many good qualities that could have benefited our country.
Then Trump comes on the TV and lets us know how great he is. I don’t think there is a word yet that describes the level of Trumps EGO.
After careful consideration, I’ve officially decided to vote for whichever candidate cares more about stopping ISIS than Hobby Lobby.
-Not Kenny Rogers
Hey, NeverTrump won Michigan!
From what I see, NeverTrump picked up 27 delegates to 21 for Der Trumper.
And not to be outdone in the polemics category, and just in time to convince Christians, comes this post.
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2009/10/29/understanding-the-german-mindset-during-world-war-ii-2/
Just another ineffective piece that persuades no one.
If Trump goes on to win, I wonder what lessons people will learn when it comes to persuasion.
Truth is not judged by how many it persuades but by how faithful it is.
Bonhoeffer died opposing Hitler, but that didn’t make his opposition ineffective.
I don’t like Trump either. But the continual (if not outright) sly innuendos to the Nazis, Hitler and the Third Reich is unbecoming. Nazis killed their adversaries dead (“The Night of the Long Knives” – “The Night of Broken Crystal”, concentration camps, “The Peoples Court”, “White Rose”, etc., etc, ad nauseum). Nazis killed those they considered “sub-species” such as Jews, Gypsies and Slavs. Nazis eliminated those who stood up against the party politic in non-violent and violent ways (Bonhoeffer, July 20th “Valkyrie”). Hitler said what he would do in his autobiography and he went about doing it. Call Trump bombastic, egotistical, narcissistic, corrupt, crude, two-faced or anything else you wish. But to compare him to Nazis demeans the real victims of the Nazi regime = it is unbecoming = and is un-Christlike in any way that you can imagine (Der-Trump anyone?). Do you have evidence that Trump has killed millions, or seeks to kill millions and has said so publicly (the key word here is “kill”!). My uncle helped liberate a concentration camp as a teenager in World War 2. He saw with his own eyes the depravity of the Nazis. He was haunted for the rest of his life with the images that were in his dreams. He died an alcoholic because of it. Trump is no where near what the Nazis were = and for anybody to say so is also living in his world of delusion.
It seems to me this thread and other posts like it on the internet these days have so much hate and vitriol against Trump that grace and mercy have found another place to live. It seems to me by my reckoning that those who despise Trump have now become what they despise. That is the really true sad travesty of this little tale.
Grace and Peace.
Rob
Exactly Dave.
Correct. Truth is not judged that way.
But leadership is.
And not to be outdone in the polemics category, and just in time to convince Christians, comes this post.
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2009/10/29/understanding-the-german-mindset-during-world-war-ii-2/
Just another ineffective piece that persuades no one.
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2009/10/29/understanding-the-german-mindset-during-world-war-ii-2/
If Trump goes on to win, I wonder what lessons people will learn when it comes to persuasion.
“If Trump goes on to win, I wonder what lessons people will learn when it comes to persuasion”
If Trump wins I wonder what lesson people will learn after the first 4 years about not voting for people like Trump and possibly listen to those who tried to warn them.
Well, that may be said of any of the candidates, as they all may bring their share of misery.
The Trumpsters, if they lose due to people staying home, will always say “Hillary is awful. We should have united to vote and defeat her, etc.
Sorry for the multiple posts.
A brokered convention will destroy the Republican party forever. I for one agree with Ted Cruz, I will support whomever gets the Republican nomination. Further, the very idea that Hilary Clinton wouldn’t be worse than Donald Trump is just not a serious consideration.
My analysis for the night for the NeverTrump campaign.
1) Hope that Cruz holds on in Mississippi, keeping Trump from the magic 50% number, at this point I think Trump will be denied a majority. If Trump reaches 50% he gets all the delegates, as it is Cruz stands to gain a few thus helping him in the possibility of an outright win and denying Trump delegates.
2) Michigan was a threeway split, Trump, Kasich, and Cruz. Kasich has now set himself as the number three candidate. Unless Rubio does well in Hawaii or Idaho, he is done. In spite of my previous comments, he might as well drop out. I don’t think he can win Florida anymore as his star has fallen.
3) Note that Trump does well in a primarily 2 man race in Mississippi (Rubio and Kasich are in single digits). Give Cruz all of one the other candidates votes, and he still comes in second to Trump. I predict if they were not in the race, then Trump would have reached his 50% threshold. On the other hand, in a 3 man race in Michigan, NeverTrump wins as the vote was split between Kasich, Trump, and Cruz.
4) The NeverTrump candidacy may be looking up. Trump has outperformed in the SEC states and near his home base bordering NY. Cruz’s win’s have come from the plains states (is there a possibility that can transfer to the Mid-West, or more likely a strong showing in Michigan boosts Kasich in the Mid-West). The SEC states are done except for Florida (which does not vote like the rest of the SEC) and non SEC North Carolina (Virginia indicates ACC may vote the same way).
5) Recent polling shows Rubio down in Florida. It is unclear whether Cruz can make a play. Rubio’s decline does not necessarily mean Cruz can gain enough to win the winner take all. Prediction: Kasich wins Ohio, Trump wins Florida. North Carolina goes to Trump, though Cruz does well and Kasich gets a some delegates. Illinois goes to Trump with Kasich showing a strong second. Cruz pulls out a close win in Missouri if he makes a play for it, otherwise Trump wins with Cruz coming in second.
My strategy for NeverTrump: I change my tune. It’s time for Rubio to drop out and release his delegates (perhaps his delegates can push Cruz over the threshold if they would vote that way). Kasich needs to stay in to pull support away from Trump, especially in Ohio and other Mid-west states. I expect him to do well across Mid-west and Mid-Atlantic if he is able to stay in. Cruz will campaign in Florida since Rubio is on the decline, but I don’t think he can win. He should focus efforts in Missouri and North Carolina where he will perform well and proportional votes can win him some delegates.
No doubt Rubio isn’t getting the nomination, but I’m still seeing reports that polls show him with a very good chance to win Florida.
If he can win Florida, even if he gets NOTHING else, he makes a solid contribution to NeverTrump.
It’s possible that Rubio’s poor showing tonight hurts his chances next week in Fla, of course. The other possibility is that it changes Cruz’s calculations. Maybe he doesn’t see Rubio as a threat anymore and stops going after him in Florida? I don’t know.
Rubio isn’t going anywhere, but man, if he could take the 100 delegates in Florida from Trump, it would be GREAT!
I agree with your analysis. I’m just not as optimistic as you. Rubio winning Florida would definitely boost never Trump. I just don’t see it happening. He was behind in the polls before tonight (although the polls have been off). I can only see his momentum going down.
For the Cruzers (of which I am not one), they need Rubio to drop out to have any chance in Florida. Even then I predict a Trump win.
For the NeverTrump, I don’t see Rubio winning Florida, but he might as well stay as he’s got the better chance. I think Rubio put all his eggs in one basket, and it was a losing strategy. Going forward there will come a point that it will be best for a three man race so that the third person can meet the threshold to draw delegates. The question is whether that should be Kasich or Rubio. Based on last night, it needs to be Kasich.
Something else that people need to take note of….record crowds are turning out to vote in the Republican Primary. I mean, people are so fed up and angry that they’re showing up to vote for Trump. I think a lot of us may have underestimated the anger and frustration of a whole lot of Americans, out here, who are just sick of all the PC, liberal views and agendas that have been shoved down their throats during the Obama years. And now, they’re fired up, and they’re voting.
David
:Don’t listen to the Trumpeters at Fox!
This is shaping up to be a pretty good night for “NeverTrump.”
NeverTrump won Michigan 27 delegates to 21 (Kasich and Cruz combined).
It looks like Mississippi is going to keep Der Trumper under 50% and Cruz will get some delegates there, denying him a sweep.
Right now, Cruz is WAY ahead in Idaho.
What’s gonna happen in Hawaii? Who on earth knows?
I didn’t know that Hawaii even had Republicans!!
It’s possible that by the end of the day NeverTrump might end up with just about as many delegates and the Donald. Der Trumper will be crowing about his wins, but it’s delegates that matter, and he’s not getting there.
If my math is correct, the delegate count right now is about even between Trump and NeverTrump.
Hawaii will decide things for the night.
Trump won Hawaii.
I’ll focus on the here and now world. The fact is no one can assume just because in the Primaries someone did not vote for Trump does not mean they won’t vote for Trump in the General election. So this talk of NeverTrump winning is just plain foolish logic.
If you don’t support Cruz NOW you are supporting Trump. It’s time to stop living with this fantasy candidate NeverTrump. Put real effort in a real candidate. It is time to call your family and friends that have not voted and garner support for a real canidate. It is time you volunteer for phone banks and support a “Real Person” running for President.
If you don’t start supporting a real candidate NOW, you are just another Trump supporter fooling himself.
Just because Cruz is smarter than you, Just because Cruz is uglier than you, Just because you are more funny than Cruz, does not mean Cruz would not make a good President.
Are there things about Cruz to dislike, sure. Look at yourself in the mirror. Cruz would probably make a better President than YOU would, unless you have a Trump EGO.
It is largely comments like that which turned me off to Cruz. The messianic nature of some Cruz support was off-putting.
I’m not impressed with Cruz. I’m not required to be.
I’m very unimpressed with Trump.
So if it’s all the same to you, I’ll follow my conscience and not be bullied by your commands.
For now, I’m more concerned that Trump not be the candidate than that Cruz be it. If Cruz steps up, fine. But he has to earn it.
The “messianic nature” is your reading. I said Cruz is flawed. Christ is not flawed. Continue to support vaporware, in NeverTrump.
What happened to the man that 8 days ago posted and said: March 1st
“There’s no more time to dither on this. The Trumpmare has to end! It’s time for Marco and Ted to stop fighting each other and join forces to fight for a nation that needs a break.”
I support this statement, even if you don’t anymore. You have a right to be flexible.
You say you dislike Cruz because some Cruz support was off-putting. If I am off-putting so be it, What does that have anything to do with Cruz? He does not know me. You know I am a jerk, heck you put me in moderation for months and probably will again. Just because I am off-putting, does not mean I do not have valid points. Who of us has not made comments not viewed by some as off-putting.
Yet I still support you and enjoy being challenged by your writings. Makes me think, maybe Dave has some valid points that need to be examined. You have opened my mind at times, Thanks Dave.
It’s strange how that idea about Cruz and Rubio joining forces to stop Trump ended up not being such a good idea after Rubio failed to perform on Super Tuesday.
FoxNews Exit polls:
Mississippi actual votes: Trump-47.3%, Cruz-36.3%, Kasich-8.8%, Rubio-5.1%, Other-2.5% (Kasich+Rubio=13.9%)
“If these had been the only candidates on the ballot today, would you have voted for:” Trump-50%, Cruz-44%, Would not have voted-5%”
Cruz would have only picked up slightly more than half (~56%) of Kasich and Rubio’s voters. Trump would have picked 1/5 of them and 1/3 would have stayed home. Trump wins 53% of the vote to Cruz 47% (Accounting for lower voter turnout)
Michigan actual vote: Trump-36.5%, Cruz-24.9%, Kasich-24.3%, Rubio-9.3%, Other-5%. (Kasich+Rubio=33.6).
“If these had been the only candidates on the ballot today, would you have voted for:” Trump-39%, Cruz-44%, Would not have voted-12%”
Cruz would have only picked up slightly more than half (~56%) of Kasich and Rubio’s voters. Trump would have picked up 2.5% of their voters. Approximately 1/3 would stay home. Cruz would have won 53% to Trumps 47%.
I do not see similar exit poll data for Idaho or Hawaii.
Analyses: To the Cruzers favor had it been a two man race, Trump would have won Mississippi (sweeping the delegates) and Hawaii, whereas Cruz would have won Michigan (sweeping the delegates) and Idaho. To the NeverTrump credit, I stand by what I said (March 7, 9:20 pm), “Even if Kasich and Rubio drop out, I don’t think all their supporters will go to Cruz. I think a lot of people would be surprised how many would default to the leading candidate and how many don’t like Cruz either, thus staying home or voting Trump.” This analysis shows around 56% jump to Cruz and 1/3 stay with others doing who knows what.
From what I see, Trump needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination outright. Cruz needs to win 68% of what’s left to win outright. Rubio would need 85% and Kasich 92% (both are pretty much unrealistic).
For Cruzers, your target going forward is to get 68% of the delegates (anything less and you have to fight for brokered convention). Something you guys need to ask is not whether Rubio and Kasich’s dropping out gives support to give Cruz a majority, but whether it gets him to the 68% of remaining delegates threshold. Again, laying dreams and fantasies to the side, exit polls last night indicate he picks up 56% of Rubio and Kasich’s voters. (This does not account for unbound delegates who might swing for Cruz if its close in order to deny Trump cutting a deal somewhere.)
For the NeverTrump crowd, your target is 41% of the remaining delegates. Reach that and its a brokered convention. However, you really need to do much better than that to remove the Trumpeters’ argument that he comes close to a majority. A likely scenario you need to consider is that Trump and Cruz are pretty even going into the convention and one of the two convinces another candidates delegates to swing for him.
As you stated if Cruz got your 53% Michigan votes he would have received 100% of the delegates. Along with 100% Idaho delegates in a 2 man race. More total delegates awarded in Idaho than Iowa.
The most interesting stat I heard last night on the news was that Cruz only spent around $1,000 on Michigan campaign. So it looks to me like Rubio, Kasich, and NeverTrump people are working for Trump to be the nominee reading your analysis. Interesting strategy.
I’ll continue to work for a real person Cruz to be the nominee till the last delegate is counted at the convention on the last go around count. I won’t support a last minute substitute at the convention, nor will I support Trump.
Although the Rules Committee for the RNC is meeting in April and can change the whole game of rules regulating the National Convention. Rule 40 stands currently regarding delegates. And Rule 40 is worth a read.
Rule 40 in the RNC handbook and it states that any candidate for president “shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states” before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention.
But not Curly Haugland, the 14-year committeeman from North Dakota. A staunch traditional conservative, Haugland knows the rule book better than many of his colleagues and is poised to use it to his advantage to empower delegates over primary voters in the next nominating process.
“Every primary, every caucus, will essentially be a beauty contest,” Haugland says of 2016. “Now, those results will be persuasive to delegates that go to the convention. But the delegates to the Republican convention are going to choose the next presidential nominee. Nobody will have the majority of delegates from eight states before the convention.”
So if you think your analysis or strategy is going to win, think again. These folks have been playing the game for years and they make up the rules.
A good read today is:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/11/a-brokered-gop-convention-in-2016
A brokered convention for 2016 may have been the goal years ago.
Good Lord … Trump swept another 3 states yesterday!
Remember the “Reagan Democrats”? If Trump gets the nomination, we may very well see “Clinton Republicans” emerge … God forbid!
NeverTrump is doomed unless the opposition candidates unite. Common sense calls for this. As long as opposition to him is divided he will walk to 1237 – the nomination – and get his posterior kicked by Hillary Clinton.
We have candidates in the race who are having varying degrees of moderate success in some states and pitiful outcomes in others – we have two candidates who quite often do not even get enough votes to gain a single delegate in proportional states. The varying (however slight) degrees of success that they are having or taking away enough support from the one candidate who seems poised to take Trump down.
I want to let everyone know that I am sincerely sorry if my comments throughout the course of this thread offended anyone personally. Politics is a passionate subject and it is quite likely that my passion exceeded the boundaries of decorum. Please know that I didn’t mean to imply anything personally, I was merely “campaigning” against the politicians I personally dislike.
This is a good reminder that politics, sports, and calvinism are probably not the best things to get passionate about on voices. So I won’t start talking about my St. Louis Cardinals because I know Dave will only “trump” me with his Yankees, and how they have more world series than the Cards do. 🙂
If you like visual snapshots or appreciate concise summaries, you might like this site. Unfortunately, it does not (yet) include Kasich. It charts delegate acquisition against a timeline and toward the 1237 goal. Pretty interesting.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/
I think the ONE workable solution is an alliance between Cruz and Rubio. It would have to be secret, I guess. Cruz agrees to back off to help Rubio win Florida and secretly encourage his people to support him.
After Rubio wins, they join forces as the Cruz/Rubio campaign.
If Trump wins Florida and Ohio, it’s time to start forming a new party and let the Der Trumper have the skeletal remains of the GOP.
That was evidently worth saying twice?
What ever happened to the original deal where whoever (between Cruz and Rubio) got the least number of delegates on Super Tuesday would step down and agree to be the winners Vice President? Was that only a good idea when you thought that your candidate (Rubio) was going to perform? If Rubio had performed on Super Tuesday, you would have been writing blogs every day calling for Cruz to step down because it was the only way to beat Trump. Since your candidate did not perform on Super Tuesday you instead came up with this ridiculous NeverTrump strategy. Your thought process seems to be somewhat liberal-leaning Dave. A conservative would not have flip-flopped so easily. Not a criticism but merely and observation. I can see why you support Rubio, he also flip-flopped on his promise to oppose amnesty.
I do not know how else to say this. So here goes….I must question the sincerity of “NeverTrump” as delineated in this post.
Supporting an imaginary conservative ghost named “nevertrump” while actively rejecting the only actual and living conservative candidate who is actually and consistently competing against him (Ted Cruz) seems irrational.
Maybe it should be called NeverTrump(orCruz).
I am not saying that are being dishonest, Dave – but I am saying that it seems that your “NeverTrump lets find an alternative” motif has a clear and unambiguous contingency attached….that being “so long as the alternative is not Cruz”.
That is irrational because, as we have seen, there is no one else who can and has beaten Trump.
That’s because you assume Cruz can win. I don’t.
And questioning my sincerity while saying your aren’t questioning my honesty is a distinction without a difference. I’m fairly used to you questioning my integrity, Dave. It’s nothing new.
I have serious doubts as to whether Cruz can win.
I think if he drives out Rubio and gives Florida to Trump, he’s pretty much handed him the nomination on a platter. If you’d stop questioning my integrity and listen to what I’m saying, it might make a little sense.
Cruz is up nearly 200 on Rubio. Let’s say Cruz tells his people (secretly), “go to the polls in Fla and vote Rubio.” Rubio wins. He gets the 99 delegates and Trump doesn’t. Kasich gets Ohio. Trump doesn’t. I don’t know who gets Illinois. But Cruz is still WAY ahead in delegates and Trump is NOT cruising to the nomination. Rubio and Kasich are probably staying in a while, but Cruz, if he’s really the steamroller you think he is, can get rid of them.
Since I don’t care whether Cruz wins as much as care that Trump doesn’t, since I’m willing to see a brokered convention if it stops Trump from getting the nomination, it seems to me that Kasich winning Ohio and Rubio winning Florida – since Cruz isn’t a serious player in either – is the best strategy for NeverTrump.
So, you keep questioning my integrity all you want. But that is my honest analysis. Would I love to see Rubio suddenly have a miraculous comeback, win every remaining primary and/or caucus and win the nomination going away? Sure. I’d also like to see the Yankees go 162-0, the Patriots go 0-16, Brady and Belichick get permanently banned from the NFL, and Peyton Manning come out of retirement to lead the Broncos to another Super Bowl. None of that is going to happen.
You can think what you want. You can think of me what you want. I have no ulterior motives. I have EXTERIOR motives. I want Trump stopped. If I thought Cruz could win the nomination I’d put a sign in my yard. If I thought he could win Florida, I’d join the calls for Rubio to get out.
Rubio gets out, Trump wins Florida and probably the nomination. I think your Cruz-love has caused a blindness to reality. You want him to win so badly you are wishing for what will bring a TRUMP victory. Cruz destroying Rubio in Florida will get Rubio out of the race and will assure Cruz a SECOND PLACE finish in the race.
That’s my understanding and analysis.
Of course, my understanding changes week to week. If I come to believe Cruz can win, I’ll jump on the bandwagon. You can call me a liar as often as you want, but I’m NeverTrump ALL THE WAY.
For crying out loud, I’m not enamored with Kasich, but if he can win, I’ll put his ugly mug on a sign in my yard. I don’t care as long as someone knocks that self-satisfied smirk off Der Trumper’s face!
Dave Miller,
To be absolutely and 100% unequivocally clear – I did not intend to convey – nor do I believe it to be true – that you were being dishonest. As I’ve told you in private conversations – I will repeat here – I believe you to be an honest person – I have never mean to imply otherwise.
I apologize for my poor wording in the post above – what I was intending to convey is that the whole idea of “nevertrump” – which BTW did not originate with you – seems insincere – because without an actual candidate to rally around – one that has already demonstrated he can win primaries and gain delegates – is nonsensical as it doesn’t really convey an actual plan to beat him. NeverTrump is not a winning strategy – in fact I fail to see how it’s a strategy at all. Sure, it’s catchy – but what does it really mean if there’s not an actual real candidate alternative rallied around?
You pretty much are giving us the Cruz campaign talking points, Dave. I don’t buy them.
I think the ONE workable solution is an alliance between Cruz and Rubio. It would have to be secret, I guess. Cruz agrees to back off to help Rubio win Florida and secretly encourage his people to support him.
After Rubio wins, they join forces as the Cruz/Rubio campaign.
I think that is actually MORE likely after last night. Rubio stunk it up pretty badly and has to realize he’s on life support. The #2 spot may be looking better to him than it was a couple weeks ago.
I don’t think that’s gonna happen. But if you look at Poor Richard’s post above about delegate progress, if Trump wins Florida (which he will if Cruz dynamites Rubio) it’s time to pass in the songbooks and start talking about forming a new conservative party.
The strategy that I would expect from all 4 remaining candidate is to run to WIN the states they are competing in. The tactic I would expect of the candidates is to use all available resources to win in a Legitimate method . Being disingenuous and having a secret agenda to me is tantamount to lying. It would be stealing supporters money and volunteers time. Something that would cause me to drop my support if the secret leaked out from the 500,000 conspirators.
It also turns out a secret agenda between 2 candidates running for the same office would likely violate Federal Election Law 30124. And we know the media would be nonstop for days skewering the candidates to the point that their political carriers would be toast forever.
§ 30124.
Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
(a)In general
. No person who is a candidate for Federal office
or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall—
(1)fraudulently misrepresent himself or any committee
or organization under his control as speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof on a matter which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent
thereof; or
(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to
participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph
(1).
OK, Tarheel, Cruz is my guy. I voted for Marco here in Georgia but now he is toast…don’t think there is post/ergo hoc thing working there.
Fiorina’s absolutely scintillating endorsement speech was, as I and others say, the best speech of the entire 2016 campaign.
…still wish little pouting Teddy would smile occasionally.
Welcome, William. LOL
It almost seems he’s self-conscious about his smile – and if you’ve ever really seen him smile you know why. LOL
Beauty contests he will not win….I guess his mama and Heidi think so though.
Electability and the polls – I am aware there are better places to obtain the following information than at the end of a mile-long string of comments on SBC Voices, but for whatever it is worth . . .
The most recent NBC/WSJ poll STILL shows that only Rubio has a shot at beating any Democrat in the general election. Of course, he has to win the nomination, which appears to be unlikely.
Clinton v. Trump – Clinton wins by 13 pts
Clinton v. Cruz – Clinton wins by 2 pts
Clinton v Rubio – Tie
Sanders v Trump – Sanders by 18 pts
Between now and Tuesday, Rubio ought to beat this drum loudly.
Also, interesting to note that Rubio is confessing and regretting sinking to Trump’s level. Last night he told Megyn Kelly he thought what he did was a poor example for his daughters and a poor reflection on his faith and Savior (or something close to that). Pretty impolitic, but also pretty Christian. Encouraging. Wish he was doing better.
I would think a 2 point difference in Clinton vs Cruz would be consider the margin of error in any poll, thus considered a tie. Sanders vs Trump at +18 is to me incredible that a socialist could win against a capitalist in America. Makes me wonder how this poll was slanted in the sampling. Which is known to happen frequently in polling. Scary thought, Bern vs Ego in the General election. I think I would have to leave this country if that turned out to be the General election, and move to Idaho.
Then again these type of polls showed Regan losing to everyone, Democrat and Republican, and dog catcher at this point. And as we know Regan won 49 states in the General election, so I may be safe in North Dakota for awhile.
It is sad that Rubio only had a couple hundred people show up at his rally yesterday when he booked it in a Football stadium. Real bad media imagery. Rubio is a good man I truly hope he finds a path he can serve this country, we really need him. Rubio VP 2016, President Rubio 2024. No Trump on either of the tickets.
Serious question: What are we gonna call the new party when Trump is the nominee?
Seriously, that guy has NO decent ideas, promotes violence at his rallies, has absolutely nothing but hubris to offer America, and people are swallowing his swill like it’s fine wine (er…Welches).
I’m at the point of despair – maybe that has something to do with the fact that I’ve had both regular migraines and cluster headaches every day for the last 5 weeks. Maybe I’m in a migraine and medication-induced coma of depression.
But if America is buying what this guy is selling – IT”S OVER.
If American Christians are voting for this guy, we are doomed!
A new party has pretty much no chance of success, but I’m not gonna be part of a party that would nominate Donald Trump.
I guess I should wait until after next Tuesday before I give up completely, but I’m ready to throw in the towel! What on earth is wrong with a nation that would CHOOSE a man like that. Some nations have guys like that take over and rule them – they have no choice. But to CHOOSE Trump. Wow.
Revival Party
noun
1. restoration to life, consciousness, vigor, strength, etc.
2. restoration to use, acceptance.
We disagree on Strategy and Tactics but not on Substance. I cannot imagine Burn, Screech, or Ego running this country.
I share your pain with headaches, the worst I have had in my life and longest lasting day after day. One day of headaches rolls into the next. Yes I truly feel your pain.
Look up Winston Churchill quotes and put them up around your computer.
If you’re going through hell, keep going. Winston Churchill
Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference. Winston Churchill
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. Winston Churchill
Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. Winston Churchill
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. Winston Churchill
What party is this Winston Churchill fella running in?
The “Return MY BUST to the White House” Party.
I’m reading that Carson will endorse Trump, the guy that all but called him a pedophile, erasing any lingering respect I had for the man. If anyone had any doubts about the reality of total depravity, they haven’t been watching this election cycle.
Hard to believe, but I think maybe he’s not forgiving Cruz for the stuff that happened up here. Just a thought.
Not forgiving Cruz is understandable. But endorsing Trump is just moon-bat crazy. Remember when I said I trusted him to do surgery? Retracted.
Bill, You do not have to worry, Dr. Carson does brain surgery=======hey it is a joke just a joke , not serious
That whole “stuff that happened up here” narrative has been fueled by Trump. Trump has apparently made Carson believe that Cruz only won in Iowa because votes were stolen from him. The reality is that Carson received about the same percentage of the vote that he was polling at. His campaign peaked very early, went back down, and never recovered. He actually did a little better in Iowa than I thought he was going to do. I understand the tweet thing and why Carson was upset about it, but Ted Cruz himself had nothing to do with it. It was a CNN tweet that I saw on twitter myself as the caucuses were beginning. They were talking about it on television as well. If Carson didn’t want people to think he was dropping out, he should have made plans to go back home after the very first contest to “get some fresh clothes.” Carson himself is much more responsible for that fiasco than Ted Cruz himself ever was.
I think Carson had a real sense of being God’s man or something, and the loss in Iowa really shook him up.
When the Cruz campaign (not Cruz himself, his operatives) did what they did, he latched on to that.
Trump, the dishonest opportunist, really seized on it. “Cruz cheated me out of the win.” The scope was small – maybe a % or 2. Limited to certain areas.
A) I think it hurt Carson’s feelings, became an excuse, and led to this insanity today.
B) I wish I could revoke my prayer of blessing at the Carson rally
“I wish I could revoke my prayer of blessing at the Carson rally.”
That’s what you get for playing kissy face with a politician.
Bill Mac,
I only know you through blogging, and I can say that through that interaction I respect you. One thing I don’t understand is how can you lose all respect for someone who simply disagrees with you politically? Further, with all due respect to you and Dave, there is no way that you guys can know whether or not Dr. Carson has forgiven Senator Cruz or not. It may be that he simply sees the hand writing on the wall and wants to get behind his party’s nominee. Further, Senator Cruz himself said that he will support whomever gets the nomination.
You are expressing my feelings exactly Dave, and those who I would have thought would see the above things in Trump, people I have personally spoken to, are ready to vote for him if he wins the nomination. I was shocked to say the least. It seems he is seen as taking the White house back for the people and nothing else matters. See no evil hear no evil is alive and well.
And I’m not even sure now that Hilary could beat him the movement is so big. It seems he has a very good chance of winning the Presidency.
“It seems he has a very good chance of winning the Presidency.”
Debbie, I think this hits on his great appeal to a lot of people — that he is the candidate who can actually beat Hillary.
Here’s a couple of quotes that Yahoo News gives from Carson’s new conference/announcement in Palm Beach.
“I’ve come to know Donald Trump over the last few years. He is actually a very intelligent man who cares deeply about America. There are two different Donald Trumps. There’s the one you see on the stage and there’s the one who’s very cerebral.”
“I prayed about it a lot. I got a lot of indications — people calling me that I hadn’t talked to in a long time saying, ‘I had this dream about you and Donald Trump.’”
lol…wow
“I prayed a lot etc.”
It amazes me how God also gave us eyes and a brain, yet I prayed a lot seems to be the mantra as well.
I had a dream about Trump….
…it was a nighmare! 🙂
nighmare (sic) …nightmare
Nice.
If Trump is a lost man, then I wonder what he thinks about Christianity after reading blog posts and comments and Tweets made by Christians? And, of course, everything points to him not knowing Christ. I really doubt that all the hateful, mean, nasty things being said about him by hristians and Christian leaders would draw him to our Lord.
And again, I am not a Trump supporter.
BTW, Carson endorsed Trump rhis morning.
Carson is a good man, no matter how harsh and judgmental some of y’all want to be. Why he is endorsing Trump is a mystery. But, he is. He has his reasons.
Yes, he has his reasons. His friends had dreams with him and Trump.
Oh, and the Trump we see on the stage is not the real Trump. I guess being two-faced is now an admirable character trait.
David, I also think Carson is a good man, and that his endorsing Trump is a mystery (especially at this point in the race). It is a mystery that may be revealed sooner or later. The reasons that the news I read alluded to were not, in my opinion, good reasons — either Trump having a dual personality or folks having dreams about Carson and Trump. (Don’t know the context, but that sounds like a P-VP ticket to me.) But I’m sure more, and possibly less skewed, will continue to come out on why Carson endorsed Trump. While I am not a Trump supporter and don’t intend to vote for him under any circumstances, I am able to understand (and even appreciate to some extent) the fact that many voters believe he is the only chance to beat Hillary Clinton.
“Why he is endorsing Trump is a mystery.”
Carson says Trump has “very cerebral” side.
Good Lord! If we get any more open-minded about a Trump presidency, our brains will fall out!
David: Do you read yourself? Do you actually believe what you are writing here?
Look, I’m not a Trump supporter. I plan to vote Tuesday here in MO for Cruz. But I think David has a point.
I don’t know why, but I don’t even remember seeing this much vitriol for abortion supporting President Obama. Nor for abortion supporting Hillary. Not just here, but my Facebook feed is filled each day with Christians saying some pretty awful things about Trump. Whether he is a Christian or not, is this the best way to present ourselves? And then there’s the vitriol for Christians who dare say they may actually vote for him in the primary or general.
I direct this to no one in particular, but the way Christians are so exercised and obsessing over a possible Trump nomination or “oh my” a Trump presidency, make me wonder where we are putting our trust. I am reminded of my own pastor’s words from last week:
“When men see that a Christian minister’s hopes and fears are invested in this world just like other men, then they [his parishoners] naturally assume that he is no more invested in the world to come than they themselves are. How can such a man lead other men to Christ’s spiritual Kingdom when the kings of this earth draw his interest and attention more than the King whom he professes to serve?”
Also, this goes the other way too of course. Trump supporters who are Christians may very well be trusting in kings and princes more than trusting in the Lord, seeing Trump as a salvation for our nation. And some of them can be pretty unChristian in their words and actions.
I would argue that there is a difference in approaching the wolf (President Obama, Sec Clinton, ect), and approaching a wolf trying to pretend it is a sheep (Mr Trump). I would argue that different approaches do need to be taken. In the first case, “most” sheep know it is a wolf and don’t need to be reminded. In the other, some of the “low information sheep” actually think the wolf IS a sheep. You can’t just get rid of the wolf-sheep, you have to prove it is a wolf. And even then, these sheep still are likely to follow the wolf-sheep because they are tired of the shepherd who they think doesn’t really care for them. Gee sounds a lot like Satan, false prophets, and people being led astray. Interesting that similarity there…Makes you think doesn’t it.
I don’t know SVMuschany. Do you think that most self described evangelicals who support Trump think he is really of the sheepfold? Or, that they know he’s probably not but it doesn’t matter?
I do not know what is worse…Thinking Trump is a sheep or knowing he is a wolf and not caring.
But even still, why such vitriol as some try to point out inconsistencies…and name calling?
So what happens if he is elected Prez? End of life as we know it? Less religious freedom? etc. etc.? Does the US experience an apocalypse?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
If you spell out Donald Trump in Hebrew then transliterate into French, then asign each letter a hexadecimal value and add the result you get 666.
(sorry. Couldn’t resist)
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.”
God’s people should not despair, even if Trump is elected.
Sorry gentlemen. I am really not trying to be preachy. You all are likely more godly ministers of the gospel that I ever could be (except Debbie, not a pastor). I’m needing to be reminded of these things as well. Times will likely get even worse for Christians in the US before they get better. How we respond is critical.
“Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.”
My concern over the Trump ascendancy is twofold.
1. Concern for our country, in terms of the kind of president Trump would be.
2. Concern for our country, in terms of what Trump’s ascendancy reveals about us. We are a far darker nation than what I would have hoped.
Bill Mac,
“1. Concern for our country, in terms of the kind of president Trump would be.”
Ok. Concern. Could be better or worse than previous presidents. Presidents come and go.
“2. Concern for our country, in terms of what Trump’s ascendancy reveals about us. We are a far darker nation than what I would have hoped.”
I don’t think so. We already for the last quarter century, pre Trump, have seen an absolutely incredible moral decline. We’re already far worse off than one man could make our lives. To borrow Bork’s title, we have already slouched toward Gomorrah.
Yes Les, it shows we have slouched toward Gomorrah when Christians support Trump.
We have also come a long way. We helped refugees in this country, we allowed Muslims in this country, we were closer to treating humans better, even if their skin color or nationality was different than ours.
Now school children are telling Mexicans, Muslim children that Trump will have them deported if they don’t do what he wants them to.
How many times does this have to be explained Les? David? I really don’t understand your questioning the speaking out of all things Trump.
Evangelizing Trump seems a very spiritual reason not to speak against him , but it’s not. It seems now Franklin Graham is now uncomfortable with Trump based on what he has written lately and Max Lucado….well he’s just hit it out of the park several times.
BTW: Trump should have been evangelized with Falwell Jr. and Liberty University surrounding him. Come on fellas.
Debbie, I do not think it is wrong to speak about Trump, Cruz, Hillary of whoever in defense of policies etc. But in my view the hate filled name calling and open loathing of Trump especially is unbecoming of a believer, IMHO.
Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
Les: In the context of this verse I haven’t seen any name calling.
Now if you are talking about the words xenophobic, racist, misogyny. These speak to his character and it should be named.
Really Les. And keeping Donald Trump out of office is the first and foremost thought on my mind. I doubt that will happen, but I am going to continue to be brutally honest on all things Trump.
The Bible also talks on how God feels about evil and what we as Christians are to do about it. I don’t think anyone speaking out against Trump has to worry about going against the Bible or disobeying God.
Debbie,
“In the context of this verse I haven’t seen any name calling.”
You do not surprise me.
After reading some nasty comments in other places this morning, I made the comment that what some believe to be prophetic voice more resembles worldly behavior.
It’s tough.
I’m convinced that Trump is following the fascist playbook in rising to power (I don’t think he’s consistent enough to actually have fascist ideology, but he’s following the playbook) and he will follow the Obama tendencies toward imperial presidency (begun perhaps by Bush, expanded by Obama) to the point where our nation’s constitutional freedoms will cease to be ours.
It’s not that I think Hillary or Bernie are improvements or that I would vote for them, but that Trump is hijacking the party I’ve been part of for all my life.
There are some good candidates that could do some good things and America is choosing Trump. It frustrates, angers, and horrifies me.
I cannot stand it.
The fascist playbook: take advantage of general chaos (much of which you start yourself) in order for the people to embrace a strong leader. Take out your political foes (executions) and set up a dictatorship. Communist playbook, fascist playbook yada yada same thing same outcome. I guess the question should be “Why is America choosing Trump?” The answer may surprise you. If you fail to see the answer, then you will continue as you have. If you don’t want to accept the answer, ditto. If you accept the answer, then what are you willing to work too seeing that God is glorified and the Kingdom of God is advanced?
Another question Dave – where you this vitriolic when America chose Obama? What differences or similarities do these two men have?
Rob
I wasn’t happy when America chose Obama. But when MY party chooses Trump, I realize how far the decay has gone.
Did you ever “own” the Republican party to call it “mine”? The decay has been ever apparent way before Trump arrived on the scene. Where have you been? This is a problem with American Christianity. We have been lulled into complacency thinking that whatever politician we elect will save or harm us = forgetting that God is in control of everything regardless if we are “saved” or “harmed” by them. We have been told not to have vitriol, hatred, or bitterness but to Rejoice! (Philippians 4:9). He has called us to be faithful with what we have and He takes care of the rest.
Not more than a few weeks ago many were being lambasted on this forum about having concerns surrounding Syrian refugees. Remember that Dave? Those who had concerns (besides being called racist, xenophobe, and other ad hominems) were told to have Faith! Well whatever is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Love you brother – I miss the days of Impact.
Rob
I think it’s fairly obvious that when I said, “my party” I did not mean that I owned it.
I also think that your response to that shows the likelihood of this conversation producing a positive result, so I will bow out.
No it was not fairly obvious = why the vitriol if you have no ownership? It is logical that those ideas or objects or organizations we embrace or self-identify as are those things we value. When humans express words like (in example) “my church” “my home” they are expressing identity with as well as ownership. It’s okay Dave – we all do it.
I am glad our conversation is producing a positive result. I would not want it to be any other way :-).
Rob
Again, since you are determined in your misrepresentation, I see no reason to continue.
Rob: At the risk of “I wish I hadn’t answered”, I have to, it’s jumping out of me as it’s so obvious even to you I am sure.
It has nothing to do with ownership. My church, my family, my convention, my party, indicates belonging to. Period. So your argument has no merit, and frankly I don’t get what your argument is anyhow. Ownership? What has that got to do with Trump?
Dave – I really do not know what is going with you. You are short = brief = and angry. You did not use to be like this. I do not know what I have done to merit such dismissive retorts from you (if I get any at all = I guess I should be happy you are replying to me after many posts on multiple topics over the last few years = it has not gone unnoticed). Which part have I misrepresented? The part that you are angry? The part you have ownership in something you deny? Which?
Rob
Debbie = belonging to an organization embeds a sense of ownership. Most human beings do not on the spur of the whim “join” something that they will put emotional capital in unless they are sure = and once joined they are a part of it lock stock and barrell. Now this emotional bond takes on varying degrees. Some are more involved than others = I may pay the dues for the PTA but never attend the meetings = but the Lion’s club I am present for every meeting, for every party. I may not call the PTA “mine” but I call the Lion’s club “my club” because I am invested. My observations here are thus: a person who invests going to a party caucus, investing time in multiple posts on a subject near and dear to them has an big emotional investment. This bond that says that they value or own that thing = especially when they use words of personal ownership such as “my” or “mine.” You know this. Dave knows this. It is futile to deny this. Most everybody can see it that has eyes to see without the blinders on.
As to how it is related to “Trump” it is not. If you read the conversation that got us here then that should be self evident.
Rob
OK Rob: This I believe is silly but yet you have brought up something that is kind of worth pursuing.
It has nothing to do with owning anything. It is a matter of deeply caring what happens to this country because we love her. We love the people in it. It is also a matter of self preservation. That cannot be denied.
But for me personally and I think Dave as well, I do not want Trump President because it would set America back in time years. It will undo the bloodshed of many who believed Civil rights and Martin Luther King were right, who believed women and children were more than to be seen and not heard, who believe that Russia was wrong, Cuba wrong. Who believed we are a melting pot and should welcome all who come through the statue of liberty etc.
Donald Trump in my opinion embodies none of those things, and unfortunately Americans have forgotten history or do not know it as it is about to repeat itself if Trump is President. And for Christians to support or even defend him is beyond my scope of reasoning. To me is shows that some Christians agree with Trumps ideology and that is most dangerous and wrong.
I don’t want Trump to get the nomination because I believe that he’s not a godly man and I believe that when the founders created our system of government they intended for it to be administered by moral leaders. They didn’t believe it would work otherwise and neither do I. However, I don’t believe Trump’s un-American. I think you may be exaggerating just a tad.
I’ll also be honest in the fact that it turns my stomach slightly to hear praises of Trump from a Christian or defense of him and then to spout Bible verses or to hear Jesus is Lord etc. as the two in my mind are not compatible.
Ok, the establishment Republicans are trying to stop Trump. Now they are joined by Sanders and Hillary supporters and of course moveon.org and the secret Service had to jump up on the stage this morning to surround Trump perceiving a possible life threatening situation (You have to utterly respect the Secret Service guys, willing to take the bullets).
If there is this much opposition to Trump by establishment Rs and socialists together, I have decided to vote for Trump in the Missouri primary Tuesday. If all those groups don’t want him to win the nomination, then they must be very afraid of losing their power and influence AND the general election. Trump is now my guy!
Debbie the whole discussion about “ownership” was a side show – I agree with you. The substantive part of my conversation was after I asked that question. If you wish to read it and reply, then go right ahead.
Rob
Les, voting for someone because who is against him, rather than his actual policies, is exactly what is wrong with this country. Trump has absolutely no proof he is going to govern from a conservative point of view. He has absolutely no history doing so, and has only held conservative positions for the past 4 years, which coincide with how long he has planned to run for Republican office. All you have is his word, a word which he has proven time and time again he will break if it suits his own interests.
Compare this to someone like Cruz, a proven Conservative, who has argued before the Supreme Court (as Solicitor General of Texas) in defense of the Second Amendment and other conservative causes. He has the second highest Conservative rating in the US Senate as recorded by Conservative Review. He called the Senate Majority leader (Republican Mitch McConnell) a liar for using cowardly tactics to rush through a non-conservative piece of legislation. Coincidently, it is this action, which he is hated for by the Republican establishment, that Trump ATTACKS Cruz for, saying Cruz does not get along and Trump will work with people.
Cruz is a proven Conservative, which is what this country needs. Trump is an egotistical manipulator who is in this race for reasons other than the best interests of this country. He has demonstrated he will change his positions before, and there is NO evidence that he will not do so again. Vote CRUZ!
“(You have to utterly respect the Secret Service guys, willing to take the bullets).”
Les,
You are right as the rain. The guys who protect the POTUS have a serious task and often a very thankless task. I realize that in the not too distant past some of them got themselves in trouble and brought shame upon a group that most of the time have had a spotless history of sterling service to POTUS, other government officials, and to this nation.
That being said, the guys from the service branches who guard the POTUS are the best of the best. They do deserve our respect and and our prayers.
I personally covet your prayers for them. One of them belongs to me.
CB,
I was watching that speech today when the Secret Service guys jumped up on the stage and surrounded Trump, ready to take a bullet for him. I replayed it for my wife and we both just had a shudder for a moment, knowing that we have men willing to do that for Trump, Hillary, President Obama, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich. Just amazing.
I will surely remember “yours” as he serves.
Les: The fact that Trump is your guy does not surprise me. I will however be waiting on the sidelines as all of you who vote for Trump and he is all we have warned of and more, hear a loud “I told you so” coming from my mouth. It’s either that or a “shame on you” haven’t decided which I am so disgusted with so many Christians right now.
Rob: If you could guide me to the post or re-ask the question. There are so many posts I lost the one with your question. 🙂
Ok, I cannot go through the Lord’s day without correcting this. I and NOT a Trump guy in the primary. It is a strange think to watch all the various otherwise incompatible groups align against Trump.
But me saying Trump was my guy? That was just in jest. Cruz is still my guy.
Dave, I know it’s tough when someone you oppose with every fiber of your being is dominating. I have struggled with those feelings for 8 years of Pres. Obama. Your struggle in this area is evident in the way you react to the SEC being superior year after year in college football.
While we may not yet be sanctified to the point where we pray blessings on those that oppose us I read some remarks today that lack a hint of grace.
Dr Carson seems to be a liar who sold out his convictions and support for a cabinet position. I struggle when some of the Christians who are making such comments, in complete ignorance of the man’s heart, condemn candidates for poor behavior at debates.
Good thing the Holy Spirit has back up to aid Him in His role to convict sinners.
Or is it the role of the evil to shame Christians?
Either way, humans are willing to help.
Heck even white supremacist groups are being more vocal since Trump. That’s America heading in the right direction and always nice to hear.
Well…this linked on Drudge not some obscure blog. I knew it was coming.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=kNa5w9js48s
So Ted Cruz’s father is cuckoo. What’s your point?
Drudge thinks it’s significant enough for 30+ million page views…today.
So once again “Christians” are going to determine that a Republican candidate for President is not the “right kind of Christian”? Romney may be a slightly right of center moderate but he still would have been better than a second Obama term. But some “Christians” could not get past the mormon thing. Bill Clinton being “Southern Baptist” was enough to get him support for 2 terms and we see where that got us. Obama has questionable religious connections (Jeremiah Wright for example) yet “Christians” don’t want to speak out on that. And yet when it comes to the Republican Nominee some want to get all bent out of shape because Sen Cruz’ father is a pentecostal charismatic?
As much (if not more) than anyone on this board, I know the dangers of certain forms of Charismatic practices (namely the Word of Faith movement). I have seen what I can only describe as demonic activity, masquerading as the Holy Spirit, with my own eyes. And having said that, in regards to Sen Cruz and his father, I say WHAT DOES IT MATTER! The only people who are going to think it is a big deal are A ) non-Christians who hate anything that looks like Christianity, so they would hate ANY type of Christian candidate, WOF, Mormon, SBC, ect; and B ) “Christians” who think that every elected official must share THEIR theological viewpoint, and if not by golly they are not good enough to be elected. Both type A and B simply need to be ignored. Or better yet, need to be drowned out by real Christians who do not fall for such petty attacks against an otherwise qualified candidate.
I’d like to know how much of that Ted buys in to. Of course, the father’s aberrant theology is not the son’s fault nor a disqualifier from office. But it is disquieting.
I’ve not heard Ted address this either way. Have you?
I haven’t heard him address it but I expect that he will be forced to do so.
It matters, SV, inasmuch as people are distracted or alienated by the noise from this. If drudge thinks it worth a link and a headline, it has at least some temporary Traction
Cruz spoke at Joyners church, from what I hear, he is a leading apostle of the NAR movement. Government is one of the seven mountains that must be conquered to bring about the return of Jesus. It was a political speech, as far as I know.
Maybe he should say he didn’t hear any questions about it correctly and then 3 days later disavow it by saying “I disavow it if it makes you feel better, OK?!” ….that seems to work for trump.
Misrepresentation comes in many forms. Saying 30 million hits when the YouTube shows in it’s counter 240,000 since 2013 is one. Taking a heavily edited video saying Ted Cruz needs to answer for his fathers statement when the video does not support the title is another. You want to blame the Son for the Fathers statements then look at the many full length sermons unedited of Rafael Cruz available on YouTube.
If your father was a Pastor do you answer for your fathers sermons?
Do you answer for every churches view your father spoke at?
What does this even have to do with the OP?
What does the number hits of Drudge has in a day have to do with this video.
Ted Cruz may have to answer at some point why he is Southern Baptist. May he be anointed with the Spirit when he does. Someday we will have to answer for the fruit we bear, may we be as humble today, as we better be before our Lord.
I am an Independent. I am going to vote for whomever obtains the Republican nomination. My motto is “Anyone but Hillary” .
May “GOD BLESS AMERICA” .
Harold, at the end of the day no matter who the Republican is I have to agree with you.
In the South, this is how we see it….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i-9D92bzu8
Gotta love Wyoming.
And DC
These two are big in that Cruz solidly won Wyoming (66%). This boosts the Cruzers standing to claim Cruz has a chance for the nomination. It’s also big for the NeverTrump guys in that Trump was essentially shut-out: 14% in DC with no delegates and 7% in Wyoming with only one delegate. Do not expect him to do well in the Mariana Islands for whatever that’s worth.
Anyone see this?
Not sure if it’s true, but it relates to the topic. Guess we’ll find out soon.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4014/fox-news-reports-rubios-money-men-say-hell-end-chase-stephens?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=010616-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Louis,
It makes sense to me. All of the polls coming out of Florida show Rubio getting beat by Trump by a margin of 20 pts.
Yes, it was a false report, likely from Breitbart.
Rubio is all-in on Fl. He’s betting everything on a win.
Cruz should hope he wins too, but he doesn’t. If Trump wins Fl, he probably wins the nom.
Rubio was smart to encourage his supporters to vote for Kasich in Ohio. Kasich and Cruz should have probably done the same in Fl.
The violence at the Trump rallies, plus videos of Trump supporters shouting racist insults – that’s the x-factor here. Does this finally slow down Trumpsanity?
Or does it just inflate the hype? Hard to say. We will see.
It will be a real disgrace for Rubio if he can’t even carry his home state.
While I wish Rubio would bow out of the race and his rose colored glasses he is looking through makes him look foolish, those who say being thumped in his home state would torpedo any future political aspirations are simply wrong. U.S. history shows a person can take several poundings, even in his hometown and still have great political careers.
As lobbyist maybe. He gave up his Senate seat, he is not running for it. He gave up Ohio. He was a star in the gang of eight. He makes the wrong choice at the right time. He attacks his opponent and then apologizes and says that’s not him. He is all talk and no delivery. Will the real Marco Rubio please stand up. Then we might have some principles could vote for.
I like Rubio also. I don’t like his choices. He has shown me that he would be the worst kind of Commander in Chief by his surrender yet stay in the fight mentality. We have one in office now that surrendered Afghanistan in 2009 and yet sends our troops in today.
Rubio is a great talker. He loves participation trophy’s. His strategy and tactics are deplorable. Leadership is an opportunity to serve. It is not a trumpet call to self-importance.
“U.S. history shows a person can take several poundings, even in his hometown and still have great political careers.”
I don’t doubt that however, the state of Florida is negatively impacted by illegal aliens in a big way. Rubio promised that he would oppose amnesty and then he went back on his word and co-sponsored amnesty legislation. It’s going to be hard for those voters to forgive and forget. It’s too bad because he speaks very well and has a presidential demeanor. He probably could have beaten Hilary or Bernie Sanders in the general election. However, a man’s word has to mean something. Even secular conservatives understand that. If he were running solely on his promises like Trump, he might have done very well. Also, he pledged to support the Republican nominee knowing that it might well be Donald Trump and now he may be going back on that pledge as well. It’s unfortunate for Rubio that unlike Donald Trump we are able to see what Marco Rubio has actually done. I think he will pay for this for the remainder of his political career.
Bill Payne, I will trust your observations on FL politics. I am not familiar with FL politics. What I mean is Rubio’s political career may be toast if he loses Tuesday in FL but any future failure will not be because he lost in this election. It will be because he is seen as a poor candidate in the eyes of the voters. In recent elections Ronald Reagan and George H w Bush both lost presidential bids only later to win. RR even started out as a Dem and switched.
As to your observation I have always planned on voting for Cruz and did last Tuesday but I liked Rubio. Lately I haven’t cared for Rubio. To me it seems he would say anything to be elected Pres.
My hope is that he wins Florida, then bows out. That’s unlikely of course.
It is curious to hear the theory that perhaps we shouldn’t be so hard on Trump because we want to evangelize him. I wonder if the same standard applies to Clinton and Obama? It is also dangerously naive to think that since in many people’s minds, Democrats are the ultimate evil, we must support anyone running against a Democrat. So now we have a person who would certainly qualify to be a democrat in a lot of ways (support for PP, pro-choice, pro-universal health care, opposed to traditional sexual mores, support for eminent domain, financial support for Democrats to the tune of 100s of thousands of dollars), but because he has donned a silly hat and has an R next to his name now, we should support him. The mind boggles.
Bill Mac, As usual on this posting when it comes to Trump it is just a constant running narrative of perspectives that are opinion in many cases posing as fact. Break down of your 3.58 post
1. Trump position on Planned P. better than the establishment Republican controlled Congress who recently refused to present a defunded abortion fund PP budget to President Obama because he would veto it. They backed down as usual , Trump position is not to fund any abortion activity of PP but fund the non abortion health clinics that in many areas do serve the community and certainly the lower income sector. That is his position that the majority of voters agree with or at least would vote for. Better than the Dems unfiltered unlimited , anytime abortion on demand that is their platform. If Trump is elected he would defund PP for abortions unless u believe he is truly a liar beyond redemption. This is assuming Republicans still would even pass the bill for Trump to sign. What is wrong with that position of Trump?
2. Trump is not for universal health care unlike the hypocrite Romney father of Obama care aka Romney care. Trump wants all Americans to have health insurance access at the very basic level. He is against Obama care, which by the way the anti Trump Republican Congress refuses to force a repeal vote on. Hard working Americans (like the Carrier A/C employees) who lose their health care by no fault of their own should be able to get coverage. Trump is realistic and again the majority of voters would/do agree with Trump. He is not for single payer but for access reform not insurance reform like Romney/Obama care.
3. Eminent domain is a phony issue brought out by National Review and talking heads on Fox. The oil pipe line, almost any interstate, any downtown development , revitalization of any city area etc. all need eminent domain. Again most Americans agree with the concept if overseen correctly by the elected officials at the local level. The majority of Atlantic City voter, NJ voters and homeowners wanted the Atlantic City development trying to save their dying city. Really look into the facts again most Americans support eminent domain. Every person I know who has been affected by eminent domain of their property thinks they hit the jackpot.
3. Trump over and over says he was the insider playing the establishment game. In NYC you are a Dem and pay into the system or u do not build, That is why the establishment on both sides are doing all they can to stop Trump. When leading Republicans, liberal wealthy media moguls and establishment power brokers like Carl Rove meet in secret on Sea Island Ga. with just one purpose , to stop Trump it is not for the national interest it is for the interest of crony capitalism that both parties are involved in.
4. Trump is winning and might win because the people respond to his message . You might not and that is fine but do not discount the valid reasons Trump has such great appeal He is fighting the establishment Republicans, the Democrats, the press who cannot believe they have not stopped him yet and the indifference of the average voter in the primaries.
Answer the above. Dr. Carson learned how easy and quickly it is to earn the scorn of the good Christians when he endorsed Trump. To many people of faith Dr. Carson went from being a great person of faith to a fool, blinded by the secular, not good enough Christian Trump , who duped him because ?
Long and I am sorry but hope someone makes it to the end. thanks.
Steve: One of the yahoos at a Trump rally bravely sucker-punched a black protester who was being led out of the rally. Trump is thinking about paying his legal fees. Nothing to say about that?
Somehow you are able to deflect anything and everything Trump does and says that is immoral and evil and justify it by the fact that he’s winning. And now Carson is able to do the same thing. I was never a Carson fan and now I’m glad. This is unconscionable.
Bill Mac, one ole 78 year yahoo who should have been promptly arrested discredits the literally thousands who have gone to Trump rallies? The foes at the Trump rallies not mostly not traditional protestors but antagonist to stir up trouble. Trump uses the media and is a showman. Trump can say stupid, illogical, mean, judgmental , etc. things at his speeches due to the First Amendment.
I judge Trump by his political not religious agenda as I guess Dr. Carson decided to do. I do not count on the President to set the moral, sexual and ethical standards for myself or my family however Trump is not the devil, he is a secular person whose religious views are probably more in tune with 70% of the American public vs. Dr. Carson’s.
10 thousand organized, pre planned, paid, Soros sponsored “protesters” shut down the free speech of Trump and his supporters.
Using the media, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich logic if I go to the ATM, take out money and get robbed it is my fault for taking the money out to tempt the robber. Blame the victim of the attack for the attack. Trump speech might be vulgar, it might be offensive, it might be insensitive but it is exactly why the 1st Amendment was the first amendment , popular speech needs no protection. Can anyone argue than if even 100 Trump supports not 10000 went to a Clinton rally and disrupted it who would be blamed?
What would happen if 150 white, black, whatever ethnic makeup protestors went to a Black Lives Matter rally to disrupt it , would the press blame them or the Black Lives Matter organizers for the disturbance that might ensue?
On TV the other night, an establishment Republican blamed Trump for going into an area where Republican should not go, can u believe that. So there are areas where free speech does not apply if you are Trump or a Republican and I guess it is areas of Chicago.
If Trump does not get the nomination if he gets majority of votes it will be the end of Republican Party which is probably already happened. The establishment Republicans will take Clinton over Trump because she is part the bi partisan establishment.
If Trump does get the nomination, it should be the end of the Republican party. They are already a joke, and he is the punch line.
If the yahoo were an outlier, I could see your point, but Trump is drawing these people out of the woodwork. The vile racists scattered throughout the US suddenly have someone to rally around. Bring me your racists, your xenophobes, your islamophobes, your misogynists, and they will find a home with Trump.
Bill Mac, my post at 1.04 a.m. addressed specific issues, issues are seldom addressed on this posting just comments like u just made. Trump is popular because of his illegal alien position, his position on trade and trade policies, his position on the economy and what I listed in my post at 1.04.
Just address the issues , I get the point that most here think Trump is a fool, a clown, an unbeliever, a liar, a racist, on and on but never any discussion of issues. Rubio a loser , always has been in his career, lied to get into Senate to voters and about his past for years. There are issues you can not agree with a candidate on but to dismiss Trump as just a joke is wrong. Trump supporters are like him, just to stupid to see though Trump but the liberals, the press and the establishment know what is happening and what is best for who? Certainly not the average American and the future of the USA. Issues , discuss issues not name calling. Do not vote for Trump for whatever reason but if you think his voters are stupid, racist, uneducated, white and easily led people you have to know that the majority of SBC members have and will vote for Trump from the voting patterns especially in the South. Have they lost their Christian values like Dr. Carson?
Bill Mac, are you a Democrat?
Of course I’m not a Democrat. If I were, I would be rooting for Trump.
By the way, I’ve been traveling in SE Asia and Australia. Trump is a big joke over here. It’s embarrassing.
Bill Mac, don’t think so. The Dems are running scared that may have to face him in the general.
Every poll but one shows Clinton or Sanders easily beating Trump in the general election, while showing a much closer race if either Rubio or Cruz is the nominee, with both men on top in several polls. No, they aren’t running scared.
Ben Carson gave a ringing endorsement yesterday, saying even if Trump fails, it’s only 4 years. He also revealed he’s been promised a post in the administration. Call Ripley.
Bill Mac, your comment finally unveiled exactly what has troubled me about the Trump bashers. As someone who doesn’t believe Trump would be good for our country in anyway as president I keep getting a check in my spirit the way some Christians speak of him and his supporters.
You say,
“The vile racists scattered throughout the US suddenly have someone to rally around. Bring me your racists, your xenophobes, your islamophobes, your misogynists, and they will find a home with Trump.”
It is the self-righteous, I am better than his supporters attitude that some are displaying that troubles me. All that was missing from your comment was “God I thank you I am not like the sinners who support Donald Trump.” You have no idea the make-up of who attends a trump rally. I know of one couple that are Trump supporters who between them have 4 college degrees and have been incredible witnesses for Christ and strong Republican workers through the decades. They are not ignorant, they are not sinful because they support Trump, they are not racist, they are every bit as enlightened as the Trump bashers. What they are not is as arrogant as some who speak as the enlightened ones. I can’t imagine a scenario where I would be a Trump supporter but I am ready to speak up for the tens of thousands who support him without causing a moment’s trouble.
Dean,
You reflect my sentiments very well above. I know some fine Christian people who are none of the monikers thrown out here routinely about Trump supporters. They are well educated long time Republicans who have had it with being lied to over and over again by the previously elected Republicans. They will never vote Democratic and will not, in their minds, waste a ballot on unelectable write ins or other names on the ballot, effectively contributing to the election of the Democrat. Boggles my mind the way Christians on here and other sites can express such venom for them and frankly for a candidate they abhor.
BTW, I cast my Missouri vote this morning (I’m traveling tomorrow to Memphis for a couple days) and it was not for Trump.
Ted Cruz thanks you, Les. 😉
Of the trump supporters I know – I will agree that most of them are not racists, xenophobes or Islamaphobes. Many of them are quite intelligent too….
But I will say that one thing that they all have in common regardless of the above. Most of the people I know who support Trump do so for pragmatic reasons over ones of principle, ideology or policy.
1. They tend to support him because they think because he is rich he “cannot be bought”.
(Seemingly willfully ignoring that A. he still can be bought B. he is one who has been doing the buying and is therefore just as much part of the corruption as the ones who take the “pay offs”.)
2. They tend to appreciate his brash and in your face authoritarian style.
3. They, for reasons I cannot quite grasps, are allowing themselves to be sold and spun by the expert marketer/brand creator. it seems they are buying into his “created brand” and ignoring they reality – I cannot for the life of me understand this because as I said – many of these people are very intelligent.
When his demonstrable untruths and obnoxious rhetoric near exposing him for the fraud he is – somehow he says or does something more outlandish that distracts from the current crisis…by the time he has masterfully spun out of the newest one – people have fofgotten about the older ones.
(seemingly ignoring that this style of “leadership” is exactly what many of these hate in Obama.)
3. They think he can beat Hillary and are somehow convinced that others in the race cannot.
I tend to agree that Trump train riders are often overly villified by those of us who refuse to board to the con man express – but I think it is completely accurate (at least with the ones I know personally) to state that willful ignorance and avoidance is providing the ticket for the train.
I also send a memo to all trump supporters – if there are this many ‘haters’ on our side – what do you think the democrat party machine and the Clintonistas (as Limbaugh coined years ago) get a hold of him for real in a general election.
All this #neverTrump stuff is pointless because it simply what he wants and has coerced those opposed to him into….split the opposition so that no one beats him. Its not a strategy – its a tactic that the con man has coned people into doing.
The internet access here in Sydney is medieval so I’ll try this again.
Not all Trump supporters are ill-intentioned racisits, islamophobes, etc. That ought to go without saying but I’ll say it. But there is no question that Trump has great appeal to these people. What is worse, Trump deliberately courts the support of these people. That ought to give the first group pause, but it doesn’t seem to.
Tarheel, I you want is to take your keen political insight seriously you are going to have to learn to count to 4. 1, 2, 3, 3.
That’s what turned me off the most to the Cruz campaign in Iowa. I got several emails from pastors all over the country basically telling me Ted was God’s man and Christians needed to rally around him as such.
That is not limited to the #nevertrump movement.
I’ve seen so much of those things in Trump that it is hard to see how people could fail to see it.
It is a line we shouldn’t cross, I admit. But the fact that not all Trump followers are racists doesn’t change the fact that there is a racist tone to the campaign. Not everyone who is supporting him is guilty of all his racism, misogyny, anti religious freedom views, etc. But that does not absolve the campaign of these things.
Bill Mac I never wavered in my support of Reagan even though a whole lot of pro abortion Dems also supported him. That’s just not a good argument.
Tarheel, yes learn to count. You’re welcome. I voted for Cruz.
Les: There is a difference. Of course a candidate can’t help it if someone supports him whom he would rather not.
This isn’t the case with Trump. He is courting these people. That’s the difference. Sorry but that is as clear to me as it can be.
You can be intelligent…and still completely misunderstand the realities of our political environment. It’s called an echo chamber. You only listen to those of your tribe, you only know people who are in your tribe, therefore it is incomprehensible when your side loses. “Everybody I know votes Republican!” I am shocked at the amount of people who were shocked when Obama beat Romney rather handily. Demographic trends are going to make electing a Republican difficult anyway, and now we have a candidate who is making the uphill climb impossible.
Dean and Les….bless your hearts!
(Les, I knew that you could be counted on. 😉 )
I think this letter by Brandon Stanton pretty well sums it up for me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/humans-of-new-york-brandon-stanton-open-letter-donald-trump_us_56e6f9c2e4b0860f99d9c9ae?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump_us_56e6ea1ce4b065e2e3d69482?section=politics
If you will read further down Les, according to the Huffington, Chicago police responded that they did not advise Trump to cancel the rally. Did Trump trump all of this up for publicity or to further the violence?
Debbie,
“Did Trump trump all of this up for publicity or to further the violence?”
Yes maybe and no.
And if Elizabeth Warren is against Trump, well that’s pretty good reason to be for him. Bigger lib than even Hillary.
In this case Les, a liberal who happens to be right on this.
I’ve taken a second look at Trump, especially in light of his modest display recently of more decent and mature behavior. I’m sticking with my declaration not to vote for him if he is the nominee. I’ll write in or not cast a ballot for president.
Perhaps there will be a brokered convention where he can be stopped in his bid for the nomination. Most any of the remaining crop of candidates would be suitable as an alternative.
I have no idea what will happen in FL.
I was so happy when Rubio beat Charlie Crist. Crist was the worst type of politician. Republican, then Independent, most recently Democrat. Rubio did the people of FL a huge favor by ousting Crist.
If Rubio had just played things more conservatively in the Senate, he very well may have been on the top of this thing. He is bright, has a good story etc.
I am wondering if his age was the Achilles heel. You go to the Senate as a very young man. It’s going to be your career, possibly. You want to get along, especially with Senate leaders. And before you know it, you start doing things that are contrary to what you said you would do when you are running. And then, you end up hacking off the very people who sent you to the Senate.
It is all understandable, and a very easy trap to fall into.
I wonder, if when all of this is over, if someone other than Rubio wins FL, if he will allow for some reflection and say that he was wrong on some issues, and that he wants to repair the relationships with Republicans in his State. I think that he could do that.
He is reminiscent of Senators like Arlen Spector, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and others. Those guys morphed over time. Some hang on in the Senate through good name recognition, constituent services, and making some of the right people in your state happy. McCain even managed to wrangle the GOP presidential nomination (with Charlie Crist’s help – see above). McCain is admired for his suffering in Vietnam, but he is not well thought of by many for lots of reasons. Still, he manages to survive.
Rubio will either become more like Graham and McCain, or he will sort of apologize. He will never be as stalwart as Cruz, however.
Hi Louis, I am from Fla. also. Rubio won and defeated the terrible Charlie Crist only with the wholehearted help and support of the conservatives, the tea party and what is now referred to with scorn as the “base”. Rubio lied to the base, his voters and immediately went with the Gang of 8 and amnesty , he stated he never would support the bill he pushed. He did that thinking at the time the bill would pass and he could run for President as the new establishment guy. He is a typical , establishment betrayer of the “base” who elected him. He lied to the voters to get elected and thought Gang of 8 work would get him nomination this year, but it backfired.
Rubio for years lied about his parents coming to US to escape Castro but had to backtrack when reported they came over in 1956 3 years before Castro. He changed it to they wanted to go back to Cuba but could not. Again another lie.
He misused his Republican Party credit card and had dubious financial dealings that were real and troubling. He was Jeb Bush’s may in the Florida House and as speaker bottled up E verify for years and did what the party told him to do.
Point is Rubio is another establishment empty suit who looks good on the surface but no depth. Norman Bramman the super rich auto tycoon is the “donor” who bought Rubio. Rubio is so bad he cannot even carry Fla. and may lose to Cruz for second. Serves him right, he betrayed the voters thinking he would be sailing high with the establishment. The establishment still pushed him to the very end.
Even going with Jeb to R. Moore’s gathering and the unofficial backing of R. Moore, king of the anti Trump movement could not help little Marco.
Well, I will say I am a bit surprised that Rubio laid an egg. It was his to lose, and it appears he is well on his way to losing. Very surprising he could not rise to the occasion.
So, Trump now gets to have the negotiating edge over the establishment, even if it goes all the way to a brokered convention.
Trump is the most conservative of the establishment candidates that are left and will now be courted by the establishment to move more to the middle. It does surprise me that the two most conservative runners are in the lead. Very interesting cycle. You’ll know when he gets his way with the establishment when he starts pivoting away from his “shock” rhetoric.
Are you really surprised? Rubio had previously betrayed the voters in Florida. It was fairly obvious that he wasn’t going to win.
Bill, I thought he might have been able to overcome that to some extent. But, he became a much weaker candidate than I imagined he would. Its good to see him get out of the race.
We will see Trump get more serious and act a bit more professional in the near future.
Act being the key word here.
Sitting in the Sydney airport, waiting for our flight. I was randomly chosen for an extra security check, and the guy just had to ask me about the election, and Trump. We’ve been in Ottawa, Tokyo, Bangkok, Singapore, and Sydney. Everywhere we’ve gone, people want to know about Trump. They are either amused or horrified or both. And not horrified in the oh no!, now the US will be strong and respected again! sense of the word, but rather in the are you really going to let that lunatic have access to nuclear weapons? sense. It’s like we are considering electing Jerry Springer.
Given that Springer has big city mayoral experience, he might not be as bad as Trump…
O.o
Protesters blocking an Arizona highway is wrong and cannot be blamed on Donald Trump.
CB: Donald Trump has invited violence. We knew it would happen when he promoted violence at his rallies. He is to blame.
Not to mention Trump’s hate speeches. I would be protesting to if I could be there.
“Donald Trump has invited violence. We knew it would happen when he promoted violence at his rallies. He is to blame.”
@ Debbie, There is a little-known concept called personal responsibility. It means that people (i.e. protestors) have to be responsible for their own actions and can’t blame another person (not even Trump) for their bad decisions. It’s biblical; it’s one of the basic tenants of conservative Christianity and it works well for those who practice it.
I am perfectly happy for people to be held personally responsible for any violence they perpetrate when protesting at a Donald Trump rally.
Are you willing to concede that Mr. Trump is also responsible for his words and what they incite? Also, are the people attending his rallies personally responsible for their actions towards those exercising their first amendment right to protest?
The First Amendment is the “First” amendment for a reason, it is the very foundation of exchange of ideas in a democracy.
The anti Trump views are this board are seldom based on facts of the issue or on a rational discourse but on emotions and feelings.
If Trump were inciting violence in the legal sense other than in the opinion of others that is a criminal offense. Trump words can be offensive, mean, stupid, racist, anti trade, whatever but it is protected under the 1st Amendment.
The protestors have a legal right to protest but not stop or disrupt with force and overbearing actions the rights of Trump and his supporters. That is the end of the story, unless your hatred and irrational thoughts on Trump override you belief in our Constitution.
What if anti abortion protestors disrupted a Clinton rally, which would only have about 500 people anyway, in the same manner the Az protestors just blocked the Trump rally and what happened in Chicago. Hillary Clinton and the Dems strongly advocate the killing of unborn babies and have no right to their hate speech at their rallies.
I am sure you all agree with that view. Be anti Trump but do not be pro stupid.
“Are you willing to concede that Mr. Trump is also responsible for his words and what they incite?”
Are you serious? I’m not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination but, to say these people were incited to do what they did is like saying “the devil made me do it”. It’s pure hogwash. Yes, I believe that people on both sides should take personal responsibility for their actions.
Steve: The first amendment is a dumb argument to argue for Donald Trump who is running for President.
Actually Steve, the “1st Amendment” was actually the 3rd article of twelve that were adopted by Congress and passed on to the states for ratification in 1789. Indeed the 2nd article is what would become the 27th Amendment (being so late because it took that long for 3/4ths of the states to ratify it). And the 1st article, as of yet, has not been ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
Further, in the original 17 articles passed by the house, the religious clause was the 3rd Article, and the Speech, Press, Assembley and Petition clauses were in the 4th article. They were only combined during the Articles trip through the senate.
To argue something “special” about the placement of the 1st Amendment, and the protections it establishes, is to be ignorant of history.
SVMuschany, thanks for the arcane and totally missing the point of my post on the “importance” of the First Amendment. My question was and is does Trump and everyone else in America have protected First Amendment Rights including stating his positions in a lawful private sponsored event free from denial of his amendment rights by a mob opposed to his viewpoints. I appreciate the smug, self serving comment trying to change the point of the post.
Thankfully the anti-Federalist pushed and gave us the Bill of Rights as the Constitution was lacking in protecting individual rights thanks to the Federalist.
So is Trump entitled to free speech no matter how much it is disagreeable or is the tyranny of the mob able to silence his free speech rights? Thanks for the history lesson. I have spent my entire adult life thinking the First Amendment was the cornerstone of our democracy, believing the importance of the Bill of Rights amendments but now know I am truly ignorant . You should inter react with the Debbie person on this site, she knows Trump is not protected by the not that important First Amendment.
You made the contention that the First Amendment is special because it is “first”. That is patently untrue.
As it relates to Trump’s speech and its results, it should be noted that I actually agree in principle with you. Trump’s freedom of speech, no matter how repugnant, is protected, and that these groups using anarchy and chaos to attempt a prevention of this speech are actually the ones violating the law. Until Trump’s speech begins to cause a danger of imminent lawless action by himself or his own supporters, it is protected. He cannot be held legally liable for the actions of those who are in opposition to his words. I could go into the SCOTUS cases that support this position if anyone wants.
With that said Steve, you have shown a behavior that I have found common with Trump supporters, of a superficial knowledge and use of American History and Constitutional understanding. Your attempt to use the position of the First Amendment to support your position is an example of this. It bothers me greatly because of how foolish you sound.
I will always point out people who are presenting a factually wrong argument, even if I agree with their conclusion. Why? Because I believe that arguing for a position/conclusion (especially one I agree with), with faulty arguments/premises does not result in winning any debates, and indeed often results in harm being done. Simply put, your attempt to attribute importance to the First Amendment because of its position of order, is so repulsively incorrect, it destroys and tarnishes your entire argument and position, one which I technically agree with.
But I am sure you are going to ignore everything I said, because heaven forbid any Trump supporter (or Trump himself for that matter) actually look in the mirror and examine their own actions and take stock in what they have done or said. No, someone has insulted you, or insulted Trump, and from now on that person must be held anathema. You must attack, you must hate, you must repudiate everything about them. The rise of populist-nationalism, and away from Conservatism by some people (and I am convinced that not all of Trump supporters were ever Conservative to begin with) within the Trump camp, is highlight of the dangerous vein of politics that many Trump supporters have. They are more akin to anarchists than anything in mainstream American politics, and indeed hold more in common with the radicles that are disrupting Trump events, than true Conservatives. When Trump suggests there will be riots if he is not nominated (by simple logic it would be his supporters), he and his supporters become as potentially dangerous to this country as those blocking the roads to his events.
You don’t think Trump’s advice to “knock the crap out of them” and an offer to pay legal fees could be, in a rational world, an incitement to violence?
I’m happy with that Ryan. Almost all the blame right now is on Trump.
Debbie,
Blocking highways is wrong. Not everyone traveling in that lane was going to a Donald Trump event.
CB: Donald Trump brought out this violence. I did not say it was right I did say it is an inevitable result of Donald Trump hooraying and advocating violence at his rallies. What did everyone think was going to happen. We have been warning you about this since Donald Trump’s hate speech and violence that he instigated at the rallies. CB you are intelligent and I think you already know this.
Trump has no one to blame but himself. There are violent people in this country that he himself seemed to give permission to come out and I believe that he is loving this. More publicity for him and he looks like the victim. Perfect campaign strategy. It’s what I believe he wanted all along.
Debbie,
The point I am making an effort to make here is that the blocking of a highway (interstate?) lane is wrong. Be they supporters of Trump,Clinton, or anyone else, it is still wrong.
In America, we block highways only in times of emergency to protect the public-at-large. We do not block highways to prove a point of contention with politicians.
Such actions border on the brink of chaos. In most occurrences of unbridled chaos throughout history, the results have been categorically negative.
The blame for blocking highways rests upon the shoulders of those who do so. The right to protest and exercise free speech is one thing and must be protected. That is why the Second Amendment is so necessary for a free people.
However, the blocking of highways is a criminal act unless it is done by elected and appoint officials who are acting in the best interest for public safety. A group of protesters, no matter their cause, have no right to impede the free passage of the general public on highways.
Look CB. If they had done this to not allow the KKK or some other like group in would anything be said or would you say what you are saying now.
Yes, free speech. And I am saying pretty clearly that I understand why the protesters did what they did.
Debbie,
I think maybe you missed the first statement in my comment. Therefore, I repeat:
“The point I am making an effort to make here is that the blocking of a highway (interstate?) lane is wrong. Be they supporters of Trump,Clinton, or anyone else, it is still wrong.”
“Anyone else” means anyone else.
Again, my point is: It is wrong to block highways and call it expression of 1st Amendment rights.
And Debbie, in the future, please make statements that might suggest that I would be in support of anything the Klan might do. That is highly insulting to guys like me who have actually fought such groups to blood. Something of which I highly doubt you or Merle have ever done, nor has most anyone who frequents this blog other than John Fariss has done.
So please don’t do that. My point is really not about Trump or Clinton, for that matter. My point is: It is wrong for political protesters to block public highways. . . . and, in my opinion, that would include anti-abortion groups, some of which I do belong.
Debbie,
That should have been: Please “don’t” make statements . . .
Sorry for the confusion.
CB: As you do so well, you have taken the questioning of my reading comprehension (which is the same as I have always told you, just fine) IOW I got it the first time I read it, and accusing me of saying you support the KKK to a new low. M answer is the same, no changes. Some things don’t change do they.
Debbie,
It is not my desire to accuse you of anything. If that is your perception of my comment, and obviously it is, please forgive my shortcoming in communication. I just don’t want any suggestion that I might support anything about the Klan.
I also hope you see that my comments have not been in support of Trump or any other candidate at this time. My point is that it is wrong for protesters to block highways, especially an interstate, if that was actually what they were blocking in Arizona.
CB: Maybe I should have been clearer in my original statement, but it’s kind of like opening a can of worms, I am pretty sure most follow my thoughts, but at the same time want me to say it so I will.
I think in these people’s minds and I am so close to that line of thought that actually I think the same thing. Stopping Trump was the same as stopping the Klan.
You’re right. The protestors have a right to protest but they do not have a right to break the law – which blocking traffic is.
Trump is not responsible for lawless protesters.
I’d argue though he’s responsible for inciting/encouraging his supporters to respond violently.
“I’d argue though he’s responsible for inciting/encouraging his supporters to respond violently.”
That’s ridiculous, it violates the whole concept of personal responsibility. Even if he specifically commanded them to do it (and he obviously didn’t); they’re under not obligation to do it. He has no authority; he’s just a presidential candidate.
Oh Bill, now this is a spiritual lesson? Come on, that’s ridiculous.
Bill, so you’re argument for “personal responsibility” includes everyone except Mr. Trump? I specifically said that everyone is responsible for their own behavior – including he being responsible for his own provoking and incendiary language.
“Bill, so you’re argument for “personal responsibility” includes everyone except Mr. Trump? I specifically said that everyone is responsible for their own behavior – including he being responsible for his own provoking and incendiary language.”
Trump is free to say anything he wants, so are we. As someone here has mentioned, it has something to do with the First Amendment. His speech doesn’t justify anyone’s violent actions.
Free speech is almost absolute. Almost. You’re not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater – and you’re not allowed to incite violence.
Not to his mention moral responsibility.
Those of us who support law and order have rightly decried the inciting to violence that people in Ferguson did – in other places as well – and even our president making comments that encourage people to feel justified in attacking police officers – we could go on and on – I happened to believe that that same standard should be held to Donald Trump.
Tarhill., so you do not believe in free speech, the violence in Ferguson was because of the actions of the people who exceeded the boundaries of free speech and resorted to mob violence. If the Ferguson people had stayed with their peaceful protest , it would have been fine. No one suggested President Obama did not have the right to state his views but should he as the chief executive render an opinion on ongoing events due to his position. The anti Trump logic on this site in unbelievable and as I have stated many times issues are never the issue , it is just opinions, feelings, judgments and pronouncements on Trump that are expressed. Issues that the establishment ignores that Trump addresses are illegal immigration and legal immigration reform, trade policy, jobs, tax policy and health care. That is the appeal of Trump , not the fame, bluster or public persona, Walker, Bush, Rubio spent over 200 million dollars to defeat Trump and all are gone. Trump will either be the nominee or the Republican Party for sure is gone, which is probably is already.
Because Trump is now associated with the Republican party, it is most likely history. I have been a Republican since I registered to vote, but after this national embarrassment I will have to consider re-registering as a Conservative or Independent.
Trump’s immigration plan is impossible. His trade policy plan will ignite a trade war and cause a large recession. His tax plan will benefit the rich and dramatically raise the national debt. His jobs policy? Non-existent. What about spending cuts? Non-existent.
Trump gives very little detail about his so-called policies, other than that they will be “great” because he’s “great” and he will put “great” people in place to carry out his “great” policies. But when experts look at the little detail he’s provided, it is clear that none of it will work.
Steve: I don’t care about Trump’s issues. I do not want a hateful man like Trump in the White House period. His character is that he has no character.
So Obama should use better judgment and alter his rhetoric because of his position – but Donald Trump has no such responsibility? Wow – Speaking of faulty logic.
So when Michael Brown’s stepfather stood on top of a police car and said to an angry mob “everyone let’s burn this _______ _________ place down” that was acceptable behavior on his part ?
Again – people carry responsibility for their own actions – all I’m saying is that Donald Trump should carry the responsibility for his.
“So Obama should use better judgment and alter his rhetoric because of his position – but Donald Trump has no such responsibility? Wow – Speaking of faulty logic.”
I don’t believe that I ever said that. It’s called a straw-man argument. You make up something ridiculous, attribute it to someone else and then argue against it. It’s not something a conservative would do.
“So when Michael Brown’s stepfather stood on top of a police car and said to an angry mob “everyone let’s burn this _______ _________ place down” that was acceptable behavior on his part ?”
Of course it’s not acceptable behavior. However, the people that actually do the burning are responsible for what they do. They can’t escape blame because of anything Michael Browns father or anyone else said.
No – as I’ve said multple times – the rioters in ferguson cannot escape personal responsibility and neither should protestors/trump supporters who act violently/illegally AND NEITHER should we give those who incite it a pass. The inciters bear responsibility too. Trump should not get a “hall” pass for his rhetoric either. He bears responsibility for it. (Unless of course you think it’s Acceptable for leaders of political movements to encourage their supporters/followers to “punch dissenters in the face and take them out – and don’t worry about it – I’ll pay your legal bills”)
Its certainly been suggested by conservatives who support Donald Trump that Barack Obama has spoken inappropriately regarding numerous issues and has stoked fires that did not need to be stoked – however some of those same people tend to give Donald Trump a pass.
Same thing with flaunted immorality – conservatives rightly went nuts – especially Christians – and even probably more especially pastors – when Bill Clinton flaunted his escapades – yet trump seems to get a pass.
I think too many Trump “haters” are buying the media narrative hook, line and sinker. Read what this AZ policeman had to say after attending Saturday.
http://www.infowars.com/tucson-cop-anti-trump-protesters-most-hateful-people-ive-ever-seen/
The mainstream media wants people to believe that Trump is the cause of all this. I don’t think so. It looks like an organized effort by the new “protest all things not socialism” crowd.
That’s ridiculous, Les.
The media, especially FOX, has gone all-in on Trump.
Few candidates have had a friendlier media than Trump. The left media wants him because they know Hillary will beat him. The right media is bought and paid for unfortunately and trumpets the Drudge party line.
I don’t think so Dave. In my view there 2 things going on. Establishment Dems are scared of a Trump v Clinton race. He is a loose cannon and will not follow long existing decorum in what he says and accuses her of. She is vulnerable. Her negatives are high too. So they want him defeated. Now. Any way they can paint him negatively helps her they think. Hence focusing on the poor protestors he’s supposedly abusing and inciting to almost riot. See, it’s all his fault.
Second, isn’t it a little strange that so many Dems and media (left leaning) are advising Republicans they better do something about this Trump guy before Rs face absolute disaster in November and effectively kill their party? When’s the last time any of you had the thought, “Gee those Dems have the Rs best interest in mind.” That’s what I thought.
Last, need people be reminded how far behind Reagan was in the polls even up to the day before? Hod’s that turn out?
Headline on hotter.com. And it’s about tweets by Elizabeth Warren.
“Elizabeth Warren: Trump is an insecure loser who reminds me of Hitler”
Does this sound like someone who thinks Hillary wipes the floor with Trump? No. If Dems thought that they would be cheering on Trump and doing everything in their power to have him be the nominee.
Reminder. I voted for Cruz in the MO primary.
That should be hotair.com
It doesn’t bother me that liberals are against Trump. Anyone with a pulse ought to be against Trump.
He all but admits that he doesn’t know what’s going on. His strategy (acknowledged by Carson) is to plan on hiring smart people to handle things.
Bill Mac, my point about Elizabeth Warren and the freak out by the left warning Rs about the dangers of Trump, and seemingly looking out for Rs best interests, was to what Dave typed:
“The left media wants him because they know Hillary will beat him.”
Who knows what will happen in the general. But it is telling how the left is responding. That’s all.
Les: And you are not looking out for your best interests? Come on Les. None of these arguments are going to fly. They just don’t.
And the “R’s” apparently need warning about Trump, for the good it will do. He has got them mesmerized.
Debbie,
“And you are not looking out for your best interests? Come on Les. None of these arguments are going to fly. They just don’t.”
Sorry. I don’t understand what you mean.
The left certainly doesn’t want a Republican to win, but I have no doubt that many on the left, while not desiring a Republican win, are absolutely horrified by the possibility of a Trump win. I share that feeling. It amazes me that the man can simply say that Mexicans, Muslims, and Free Trade are bad and people are willing to overlook all the negatives he brings to the table. In one way or another he wants to declare war on the rest of the planet.
Listen, you guys are just getting a taste of what it is going to be like if Trump is President. He has invited violence. He has paid for violence by paying the legal fees for those who hit people for him at his rallies. He has said if GOP does not back him there will be more violence and protests. I could go on and on but you watch the news you know without my saying.
It will be a very violent country because Trump has OK’d it. He love this publicity.
Seems like a natural [but evil] progression from lasciviousness [adultery, pedophilia, pornography, gay marriage] to having greedy and/or lying candidates to authoritatively sanctioned violence.
When a country [or a person] turns away from God, they turn to sin and then more sin and then continued worse sin until and unless the grace of God has mercy and compassion.
Let us first continue to turn to the Lord in personal holiness and then to lift up our family, our neighbors and our country in prayer.
The coming storm clouds can be plainly seen.