Trump the Sore Loser (Again)

National Review ^ | April 11, 2016 | The Editors

[reaganaut1]

Donald Trump is right: The system is rigged. It’s rigged in favor of front-runners. That’s why Trump, who is leading the Republican nominating contest, has a larger percentage of delegates (46 percent) than of votes (37 percent). Unsurprisingly, Trump never mentions when the rules have helped him. He much prefers to whine and peddle conspiracy theories when they don’t.

Trump’s latest tantrum is over Colorado, where Ted Cruz just swept all 34 of the state’s available delegates. Trump is calling the results “totally unfair” and on Twitter he asked: “How is it possible that the people of the great State of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican Primary?” If Trump is so concerned about states’ not holding primaries, perhaps he should renounce his victory at Nevada’s caucuses.

Colorado is one of ten states and four territories that opted for caucuses or state conventions over primaries. That does not make it undemocratic. In fact, on March 1, in community centers, gymnasiums, and churches across the state, 60,000 Colorado Republicans attended 2,917 precinct caucuses to elect delegates to the county assemblies and congressional-district conventions that convened during the following weeks. The district conventions send 21 delegates to Cleveland; and at this weekend’s state convention, more than 600 people chosen by the county assemblies competed to be one of Colorado’s 13 statewide delegates. Nothing was “stolen.” This is how Colorado’s delegate-selection process works.

[MaxFlint]

If you magically stopped all immigration tomorrow, the country would still being going down this road to hell.

Not as quickly.

If immigration isn't the real problem what is?

The advantage of addressing immigration is its simplicity. Most immigrants vote Democrat. Stop them from becoming citizens and there are fewer Democrat voters. A vague notion like "America is going to Hell" doesn't lend itself to political solutions.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

>>>”The advantage of addressing immigration is its simplicity. Most immigrants vote Democrat. Stop them from becoming citizens and there are fewer Democrat voters.”

Seems to me you have identified the bigger problem: “Democrat voters.”

Immigration isn’t the problem. Why do they vote democrat? Why are democrat voters a problem?

What is the real problem here?

The democrat voter base is comprised of takers. We have a government that increasing rewards takers and punishes producers.

As long as you have a big government rewarding dependents, you will have democrat voters such as we are growing. And you will have immigrants finding a way to get in to get free stuff.

If you had immigrants wanting to get in to be producers and support the American system of free enterprise, self-reliance, etc., then they would not be problem.

We’re not the victims of Mexico, building a wall does nothing to address the real problem, which would continue and grow.

[MaxFlint]

If you had immigrants wanting to get in to be producers and support the American system of free enterprise, self-reliance, etc., then they would not be problem.

Asian immigrants are not, for the most part, takers. In fact income statistics show them to be outstanding producers.

Asians vote 55% Democrat. There is something beyond the taxpayer-tax consumer divide at work here. I theorize that American culture is uniquely predisposed to liberty, perhaps due to its unique founding as a colony of nonconformists. Any dilution of the existing population will tend to move the average political orientation towards the global norm of socialist tyranny.

So far no Rovian scheme to convert immigrants into limited government Republicans has succeeded, so I'll stick with ending most immigration.

[D-fendr]

Two points:

I believe you are not entirely correct about “Any dilution of the existing population.”

I don’t think it is cultural, although all humans are to a degree products of culture.

I believe human beings are “predisposed to liberty” and that America has, in the past, attracted those. Our history is full of their stories. We still attract them, from Mexico and elsewhere.

However, America has changed to attracting too many predisposed to government dependence.

And, as I’ve said several times, even without immigrants we’re going down the same road with non-immigrants. In this regard illegal immigrants are a small fraction of the problem.

The root problem is we have created a government with the size and capability to create dependency.

[D-fendr]

I thought of another way to express my point in terms of your post:

>>American culture is uniquely predisposed to liberty

The problem is our culture has changed in this aspect (and others) - and not due to immigrants. Even without immigration our culture remains the same, resulting in the same problem.

[MaxFlint]

You seem to be taking the Milton Friedman view, where the problem with immigration is the welfare state. Get rid of the welfare state and there's no problem.

The fly in the ointment is that immigrants vote to keep the welfare state, so the more you let in the harder it is to implement Friedman's solution.

Stopping immigration is a prerequisite of shrinking the welfare state. There is no getting around the immigration issue. If it isn't controlled the United States will end up at the global mean for liberty, a considerable decline.

[Chgogal]

Voters know better than their Betters. Even the Denver Post knew better.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3421367/posts?page=52#52

[MaxFlint]

The problem is our culture has changed in this aspect (and others) - and not due to immigrants. Even without immigration our culture remains the same, resulting in the same problem.

What makes you think it isn't due to immigrants? California has gone deep blue thanks to immigration. This alone creates a massive electoral college disadvantage for conservatives. No mass immigration and California might still be electing Ronald Reagans.

Issue by issue the pre-1965 population and their children and grandchildren are less well disposed towards big government than the immigrants and their children. This holds true even for economically successful groups. Looking at the scope of history there has been very little liberty anywhere at any time.

It should be no surprise that people from cultures with no history of liberty, where authoritarianism is the basic philosophy (as is the case in the muslim world), will carry their disdain for freedom with them.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply and yes to the Milton Friedman comparison. For more comparison and why I disagree strongly with Trump on economics, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DhagKyvDck )

Here’s where we disagree:

>>Stopping immigration is a prerequisite of shrinking the welfare state.

It’s a very small proportion as I’ve said before. The welfare state has and would continue to be the same American-destroying problem. We are adding to the welfare state without even considering immigrants. It is the root problem, the cause; the rest is results.

What I would support for help in the short term is stricter e-verify and penalties for visa overstay, which I believe all the candidates do. I would add laws, ideally constitutional amendments, that prevent anyone who has ever entered the country illegally from becoming citizens or getting work permits.

Regarding the big welfare state increase: Trump is also weak on healthcare. His past is quite shaky and he has come very late to the positions of conservatives; it doesn’t inspire trust in his real views. (I would repeat this for pretty much all of Trump’s policies.)

As you have likely gathered, I’m solid conservative. I think conservative principles and governing philosophy are the answer. So, I’m one of those who opposes Trump for those reasons.

Thanks very much for your courteous discussion. I appreciate your views.