The Case for Donald Trump

Town Hall ^ | 8 Feb 2016 | Kurt Schlichter

[Rummyfan]

It’s easy to make the conservative case against Donald Trump – he’s a Hillary-donating human troll doll who displays the interpersonal skills of Damien from “The Omen” while practicing the same deep, abiding commitment to conservative ideology as Charlie Sheen does to sobriety. Yet millions upon millions of Americans – some committed conservatives – still choose to support his nomination and, stunningly, do so on purpose. We need to understand why. In the Army, you call it “red teaming” – looking at the fight from the enemy’s point of view. In the law, a trial lawyer must not only know his own case but understand the other side so well that he can make his opponent’s case. And there is – cue the prayer for the Republican Party – a case for Donald Trump.

The best argument for nominating The Donald is the fact that he is not one of those aging, doddering, super-white, socialist Democrats. It’s a sad state of affairs when the sole item of diversity in the leadership of one of the two major parties is whether or not one sits to pee, and considering Bernie’s quirks it’s probably best not to explore that imagery too deeply.

[Yosemitest]

Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump is CRAP !
And those people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE the BULL CRAP that he's spouting ... are in for a shocking surprise !

[duffee]

“What utter crap.”

Another insightful and revealing analysis from a blinders wearing Trumpeteer.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I want to kick over the table and start a new game. :-)

[Yosemitest]

"Haley Barbour strongly endorses Trump's eminent domain ... "

That shocked me too!
"Eminent Domain FOR PRIVATE USE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL !
PERIOD !

[Yosemitest]

It would be nice if those DUPED Trumpeters would WAKE UP !

[Lagmeister]

Shocking surprise from where? Are you completely ignorant of legal precedent? Courts have long since adjudicated eminent domain for redevelopment under the term ‘public interest’ and it’s settled law.

[Lagmeister]

Cruz is the classic GOPe in his votes and positions on the issues. His Constitutional preach-a-fying are mere words: TPA/Corker/self deporting illegals/anchor baby lie/PAC funding by hedge fund tax cheat/scamming voters/hidden VAT tax... and so forth and so on.

[Jane Long]

It would be nice if those DUPED Trumpeters CRuzateers would WAKE UP !

There, fixed it.

Trump's life story is an open book. His positions have changed, ala Reagan, as he's witnessed the continuing destruction of the country he loves.

Perhaps CRuz should've traveled home for a new set of clothing. His wolf suit is showing through :(

[AuntB]

Sen. Cruz hires some questionable people...this is the guy who pulled the Carson is quitting scam, and he’s done it before.

Jeff Roe Linked Once Again To Political Lies
http://www.yeoldejournalist.com/23653-2/

[snip]It’s true that Missourians play dirty politics, perhaps none more so than Jeff Roe, the guy behind the House of Cards ad. Known as the “Karl Rove of Missouri,” he got his start in politics in 1994, according to Mother Jones, and helmed successful campaigns for Missouri Republican Congressman Sam Graves. Opponents have described Graves’s campaign staff as “evil”; other phrases used to describe Roes’s campaigns include “intimidating” and “very, very bad.” It’s also worth noting that while Missourians are trying to figure out what to do about Roe, he’s taking his hardball talents to the big leagues. Late last year, Ted Cruz, the Republican senator who no one really likes, announced Roe would be heading up his presidential campaign.

[Jane Long]

Agree. Roe is the dirty trickster of the GOPee. His tactics are Clintonesque. Not a good association :(

[Yosemitest]

Those 'Courts' are WRONG !

Source:

James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view,
and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest", or "public benefit".[5]
The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain:
the taking must be for public use
and just compensation must be paid.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG !
You keep following an UNGODLY man, and you'll bring about HELL !
Vote for the GODLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY LEAD man !

CRUZ or LOSE!

"The Republican establishment has more experience electing Democrats than I do.
They've shown they know how to do it, in presidential races. "


What You Need To Know About Ted Cruz ( 1:46 )

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

CRUZ or LOSE!

[duffee]

“Cruz is the classic GOPe in his votes and positions on the issues. His Constitutional preach-a-fying are mere words: TPA/Corker/self deporting illegals/anchor baby lie/PAC funding by hedge fund tax cheat/scamming voters/hidden VAT tax... and so forth and so on.’

What are Trump’s words worth? They are certainly not backed by action or any consistency. What about his contributions, endorsements? Can you really point to anything in his past that shows he’s conservative except what he says now? What about his overuse of superlatives instead of facts plans ideas? Instead of a health care plan, the border wall etc. we get superlatives not a plan, fix, or program. What about his anger and rage? what about his vindictiveness, childish name calling, lack of empathy exhibited by mocking the afflicted? These are symptoms of Narcissism and I believe in Trump”s case to be extreme. I believe he would appoint those who would either pump him up or that he could put down. Trump shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the “button”.

[Lagmeister]

more moderate view,

Well, the courts have evolved over the years, so what. It's been 'public interest' for generations and you think it is now a campaign issue? How about Cruz now saying he ran against anchor babies in his bid for the Senate when clearly, unedited, he claimed back then that the 14th amendment supported anchor babies - isn't that more important to voters?

Apparently the opinion of Constitutional conservative has evolved also. It used to be capitalist, America first - as such were the founding fathers. Now, apparently, it's globalist on a piety platform - as such the weaselly politicians like Cruz.

[Lumper20]

Cruz and his father are good at BS. Cruz’s father claims he escaped the firing squad and was going to join Castro/link up with him in Nov 57. Amazing as Castro was in Mexico and had just been released. He set sail for Cuba in a small boat. He did not reach Cuba that month. Cruz had no damn way of knowing Castro was out of Mexico. Ted is a full of it as his old man. To hear the old man you’d think he had fought with Castro. The old man acts so important. I have never heard any US Vet brag like this clown.

[Lagmeister]

Instead of a health care plan, the border wall etc. we get superlatives not a plan, fix, or program.

Pay attention, read up and watch a few speeches - try ignoring the lying political memes and the cut and paste newsies. And by the way, most folks are angry. We are angry at weaselly globalists, of which I have found Cruz to be among them... sad to say.

[Yosemitest]

"How about Cruz now saying
he ran against anchor babies
in his bid for the Senate
when clearly, unedited, he claimed back then
that the 14th amendment supported anchor babies
- isn't that more important to voters?"

Let's take a close look at what TED CRUZ said at that time about his amendment to the "Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill" :

Cruz In 2013 On Providing Legal Status To Illegal Immigrants ( 2:14 )
Published on Nov 12, 2015

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 5/21/2013:
"And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue
and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system
and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows.
If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.
They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows,
which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as THEIR principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows.
This amendment would allow that happen, ...

"But what it would do, is it would REMOVE the pathway to citizenship, for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve,
And a second point to those advocates that are so passionately engaged,
In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment,
and I think everyone here views that it is quite likely that this committee will indeed reject this amendment,

In my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will FAIL in the House of Representatives.

I don't want immigration reform to fail.
I want immigration reform to pass.
And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle,
if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that SECURES THE BORDERS, that improves LEGAL immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows;
then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together.
And this amendment,
I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."

The intent was TO EXPOSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" AND THE DemocRATS for their dishonesty.
THEY were trying to LEGISLATE the ILLEGAL ALIENS a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP.

TED CRUZ was trying to amend the Bill so as TO STOP THEM,

by REMOVING the pathway to citizenship,
for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.

When it comes to Marco "AMNESTY" Rubio, CRUZ WINS hands down.

Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer and supported a massive amnesty plan.

But TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.

They can't stop CRUZ.
Source:

... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally -- another proposal he has usually rebuffed.

"I would enforce the law," Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers.
"Federal immigration law provides that
if someone is here illegally and is apprehended,
that they should be sent back to their home country."

Cruz has recently begun stressing that he believes the number of undocumented immigrants would decrease with strict border enforcement.
...

"The only people I'm under fire from are reporters who want to throw rocks," Cruz said in Harlan.
"Once we've demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally."

The Rubio campaign ...
"He has attempted to muddy the waters," Cruz said on the stage. "Where there was a battle over amnesty
and some chose, like Sen. Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer
and support a massive amnesty plan.
Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people
and secure the border."

Let's get VERY CLEAR on TED CRUZ and Immigration:

Immigration

As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates LEGAL immigration.
He has championed measures
to secure the border,
reform the LEGAL immigration system,
and uphold the rule of law.

Americans, and particularly Texans, have witnessed the harmful effects of an unsecure border,
endangering the lives both of citizens and those who enter illegally.
President Obama's policies have encouraged drug smugglers, child abusers, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to traffick immigrant children into our nation under life-threatening conditions.
In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by PROMISES OF AMNESTY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE .
Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.

As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter LEGALLY, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation TO PREVENT OBAMA FROM ILLEGALLY EXPANDING AMNESTY .
The House acted to solve the ongoing crisis and passed bills that closely mirrored Sen. Cruz’s proposals,
but regrettably the Senate DemocRATS REFUSED TO ALLOW A VOTE on the measures.

In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the "Gang of 8";bill that would
strengthen border security,
expand green card opportunities,
increase high-skilled 'H1B'visas, PREVENT ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM RECEIVING WELFARE BENEFITS ,
and enforce the rule of law.

ALSO from On The Issues :

Ted Cruz on Immigration

End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances
Q: How to respond to the split within your party on immigration?
What you're saying is
that the Republicans should vote to fund the governments for all departments except one:
no funding for the Department of Homeland Security,
which handles immigration, rescinding President Obama's executive action,
and if he vetoes that, he's responsible for shutting down the department.
The problem is
that's almost exactly what you did with the government shutdown across the entire government in 2013 with ObamaCare,
and it backfired badly on your party.

CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying:
if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty.
We need to HONOR WHAT WE SAID .
We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE.
Step #1 is IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees.


Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded

Q: How would you rescind President Obama's executive action on immigration?

CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE .
Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees,
other than VITALl national security positions,
for the next two years,
UNLESS AND UNTIL the president ENDS THIS LAWLESS AMNESTY .
That is AN EXPLICIT AUTHORITY given TO the Senate.

Q: Are you saying the Senate should REFUSE TO CONFIRM the president's new nominee for attorney general?

CRUZ: We have to REIN IN the executive.
And step #2, we've got is THE POWER OF THE PURSE,
and we should FUND ONE AT A TIME the CRITICAL PRIORITIES of the federal government,
but ALSO USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE TO ATTACH RIDERS .


No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas

When discussing what to do about the 1.65 million ILLEGAL immigrants living in Texas, . . . CRUZ again said
HE DID NOT SUPPORT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL immigrants living in America, . . .

Give police more power to ask about immigration status

Cruz accused Dewhurst of using his position as head of the Texas Senate to KILL A BILL last year that would have given police more power to ask anyone they detain about their citizenship status--a charge Dewhurst denied.
Both agreed that the US has FAILED TO SECURE ITS BORDER with Mexico,
and said they OPPOSE AMNESTY for ILLEGAL immigrants and the Obama administration's new directive
allowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.


Boots on the ground, plus a wall

Border wall: James and Leppert OPPOSE A WALL,
Dewhurst and CRUZ tout "boots on the ground" AND A WALL IN SOME PLACES .


Triple the size of the Border Patrol

CRUZ on immigration: Wants to TRIPLE [the]SIZE of Border Patrol.
Says Dewhurst supported in-state tuition for kids of ILLEGAL immigrants.
Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program.
"If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.


Strengthen border security and increase enforcement

Ted Cruz has worked to STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY and help ensure that America remains a nation of laws.
Among other efforts, he has worked on efforts to INCREASE PENALTIES for felons WHO ENTER THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY .
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales,ILLEGALLY .

[poinq]

I was talking about one topic, Congressional deals. I feel that republicans normally make bad deals that favor republican lobbyists, not republicans.

I also feel that the press makes us look bad for doing nothing and shutting down the government.

I feel a solution is to have someone on our side that is not beholden to lobbyist or campaign financiers. To have someone who can deal strongly. And can fight the press.

You, are looking for the perfect candidate on positions, whether or not he can actually do the job. I am looking for the best man for the job right now. I like Trump for his abilities with the press and, his lack of outside financing. And his strong approach to negotiations.

I like Cruz for his ability to debate, his intellect, and he is closest (not perfect) on conservative values.

[Yosemitest]

You are allowing your FEELINGS to govern you.
Logic should lead you to support a BETTER Candidate!
>br> Now as to your reference to the "PERFECT" candidate, PONDER THIS !
"COMPROMISE": the Republicans WORST habit !
It's their Achilles Heel !

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
Now Trump is NOT an "Establishment Republican" , but he IS a COMPROMISER,
And Trump IS a SOCIALIST DemocRAT !
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2016 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[Lumper20]

The Hispanic Republicans in Texas say Cruz was all for granting them amnesty. He just recently changed they say.