Wednesday, February 24, 2016


A new topic:
WP GOP leaders: Stop Trump!!!

WM How will Trump Unite the Party

Is Trump a problem for the GOP? for the country? Whose fault is it? What should be done?

In the WAPO alone there are a great many more recent columns on Trump. I don't think I have seen any where the writer is happy he is winning." Laurie W. 
The only way I think the GOP can stop Trump is to rally around Cruz or Rubio.  As long as Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson are splitting the 60% to 70%, Trump will keep winning.  Now the question is how do we get all but one of these power hungry narcissists to fall on the swords?

The idea of Trump having the nuclear launch codes does scare me some however I remember one wise thing that Obama said that went something like this...  'I had to learn and change a lot when I went from Candidate Obama on that side of the desk to President Obama on this side of the desk.'

Now if you want to see something hilarious...  Check this out.
Colbert's All Trump Debate


Sean said...

Since this blog loves tying back politics to work of fiction, the current hubbub on the GOP side of the aisle right now brings to mind a scene from "The Dark Knight". After visiting disfigured DA Harvey Dent in the hospital, Gordon come out in the hall where he sees the mobster Maroni. Maroni complains about the anarchy that the Joker has unleashed on Gotham City, and Gordon's response is "You should have thought about that before you let the clown out of the box."

The chickens are coming back to roost for the GOP. For years, they have looked the other way as elements of their party have whipped up wild conspiracies based on race, religion, political creed, and national origin. Now, "the establishment" has lost control of those forces and they are freaking out.

jerrye92002 said...

All the GOP "establishment" (whoever that is) has to do to stop Trump is to get firmly and very publicly behind him.

John said...

Sean, That may go for the Left also, as these excellent images show... :-)
Bernie Joker
Trump Joker

Jerry, You will need to explain that thought in more detail.

jerrye92002 said...

It seems simple enough. Trump is exploiting the huge "pox on both your houses" sentiment in this country-- the belief that Obama and Democrats are ruining the country and that the Republicans aren't resisting them. Ted Cruz has a similar message but lacks the reality-star recognition and profane inanities that Trump's angry, nihilist supporters connect with.

Therefore, since most of them believe the "establishment" is at fault and that we need an "anti-establishment" candidate, said "establishment" can destroy his candidacy by simply embracing him. "He's our guy" would be the end of his appeal. If believed, of course.

Laurie Wagner said...

I had a discussion with a relative recently about my view that other GOP candidates are just as extreme as Trump and in many ways no better. Rather than send an I told you so link to my relative I will just post it here:

Surprise — Trump, Cruz and Rubio aren’t all that different

I think many people mistakenly view Rubio as a moderate, which he has been compared to Trump in style but not in policy (as much as Trumps has policy, which he mostly does not)

John said...

Personally I am guessing that Trump is more moderate than anyone left in the GOP race. That is why I think the Democrats should worry if he gets the nomination. He will poach a lot of moderates and even Democrat voters.

I just don't he has a good enough "character" to be our Commander in Chief.

John said...

I am adding some comments here that are related.

MP People won't die

Laurie Wagner said...

And here is one more link just because I found it amusing, especially as I have some experience or expertise with third grade prose:

Donald Trump’s ‘Captain Underpants’ campaign

Laurie Wagner said...

about - highly educated fiscally and religiously Conservative parents who love Trump

- support for Trump baffles and concerns me, for the small chance that Trump could actually win. Is this really the president that they would want representing America around the world? What about adding $10 trillion to the national debt? How do your parents feel about immigrants and Muslims and torture? I ask these questions as this is the closest I have gotten to Trump supporters, other than those brief snippets of supporter views on TV

I think very few dems will support Trump. I don't know about people who consider tehmselves moderate. I think Obama will make a very strong case against voting for Trump that will be persuasive to moderates as the election gets closer.

At this point I still feel confident of Hillary winning, but also quite disturbed that more than 40% of voters will support Trump. What has happened to our country? How did so many become so dumb and hateful?

John said...

On the other hand, how did people get so lackadaisical and sensitive. We have ~11,000,000 people in the country who are not supposed to be here. They are earning a living that should likely go to legal immigrants and citizens. ~400,000 people cross the border without any kind of due diligence or background checks.

A man says he wants to make a strong border and remove people from the country who are not supposed to here, and many Liberals would swear he is being hateful. Where it would simply be enforcing our laws for a change.

As for keeping Muslims out to eliminate the risk of importing terrorists and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. I am sure they are aligned with Trump.

CNN Trump Voters
NPR Trump
Big Think Trump

jerrye92002 said...

Wow, Laurie. Once again your sources of information amaze me, in this case the "surprise" item. I couldn't believe it. Well, I could, but only because it obviously comes from the radical fever swamp of the far Left. It takes snippets of each candidate's public statements and simply ignores the amount of well-thought-through and effective policy beneath, as well as most reality. Saying tax cuts "aren't paid for" is one clue, that says all money belongs first to the government, and then follows up with the notion that government spending can not be cut, regardless of gross inefficiencies, waste, fraud and abuse.

Saying all three candidates "disagree" with manmade climate change CONTRARY to a majority of Americans is a lie. Americans don't much care about the subject and if they do have an opinion, it is formed by "the most successful pseudoscientific scam in history."

There are some reasons to not want any of the Republican candidates, one by one (particularly Trump IMHO), to be President. It's quite another to say there are no differences between them.

Laurie Wagner said...

here is a link to a Trump post from my fav blogger K. Drum:

Liberals Need to Back Off the Trump Love

It makes me a little sad/worried that liberals (including myself) don't hate Trump as much as we should. He does have a strange sort of charisma. I have desribed him as affable and he would win they candidate you would like to have a beer with test. I still think less than 50% of the voters will vote for him.

I watched the video that Eric Black posted in his minnpost column a couple of days ago. I think Trump (we are going to make America great again) is going to be the hope candidate this year and Hillary will be the fear candidate ( we have to stop Trump from destroying the country and our reputation around the world)

Laurie Wagner said...

Here is a description of the views of Trump supporters that, as Wallis, says should make one emabarrassed to be included in this group:

It's Embarrassing to Be an Evangelical This Election

Laurie Wagner said...

Rubio should be running anti trump ads here. I think MN will be one of his best states on Tuesday. He will still lose to Trump but I think it will be closer than many other states. Unless Kasich gets some of the Rubio vote.

Trump faces wave of big-money attacks
A Marco Rubio-focused group raises $20 million in the last week, as the candidate zeroes in on Trump.

jerrye92002 said...

I think you are correct, that liberals need hate and fear to win elections. Trump succeeds when liberals throw out these PC charges against him, because he succeeds as the "anti-PC" candidate. And I believe the only reason he says them is to aggravate the liberal minority and hide his own liberal past from the voters. If he could do what he said, to the extent he says anything at all specific, he would be everybody's favorite candidate. But get Mexico to pay for a wall? Do I really believe that?

Well, OK. I go to Trump's website and he has proposals and explanations spelled out, including how to get Mexico to pay for the wall, and they seem far more reasonable than his speeches and debates. I've long said that if he curbs his tongue as President and "picks good people" around him, he could very well be OK. The rest is, hopefully, just showmanship to get elected.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, I'm starting to get a real LOL out of your cites. The one from Huffpo on evangelicals, this time. First we define evangelicals however we please to make our point, then claim that those calling THEMSELVES evangelical don't match up, and the reason given is because said evangelicals want to care for the poor themselves rather than let government do it. You can't help but laugh at the pretzel logic involved, can you? I'll also point out that ANY of the Republican candidates' tax plan would do better for the working poor than anything realistic (if you can find it) that Sanders and Clinton have proposed.

Laurie Wagner said...

Have you never heard of Jim Wallis? He has written 8 books and is the founder of Sojournors. Do you think he makes up what polling reveals about the views of Trump supporters? The only description (of Trump supporters) that makes sense to me is a combination of racist, xenophobic and anti government (and I forgot- stupid).

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry to hear that 40% of the population is stupid for supporting Trump. They must all be Democrats. :->

Sorry, but I looked up the Jim Wallis piece and, once again, you've got somebody making statements about people they cannot possibly know, and attaching motivations to them that only serve to make the one making the charge "holier than thou." It makes no allowance whatsoever that someone may have a perfectly valid, non-racist, etc. reason for supporting one candidate over the other. It has been a long time since a "thinking man's candidate" has dared to run for office, so I will agree that these decisions are most likely being based on something closer to raw emotions (not necessarily prejudice). That's the problem with liberal thought. A big black kid attacks a cop and gets shot, and right away that means "the system" is racist? What is more racist, to assume that one lone black kid committed a crime and got shot in the process, or that EVERY white cop is going to shoot innocent black kids at random?

John said...

The Wallis piece was amusing to say the least. I have not some abuse percentages so badly in a long time.

This was one of my favorites "43 percent with a high school degree or less"... Like this is a bad thing.

Laurie said...

It seems to me that you guys have missed the main idea of the Wallis column, which is there are many reasons for Christians, evangelical or otherwise, to disavow Trump. There has been a ton written about evangelical support for Trump, I will spare you more links and my own guesses to explain this mystifying phenomenon.

jerrye92002 said...

I do not disagree with the general premise in the least. I just saw a column of "40 reasons not to vote for Trump," and his lack of conservative religious principles and practice were prominent among them. I only took issue with Willis because he was assuming things about Trump supporters that he could not know, and based only on said support, even though there might be rational reasons for much of that support. Meanwhile, opposition to Trump himself has a plethora of rational explanations, again not dependent on any particular evil motivation.

Anonymous said...

My modest proposal is for Mitt Romney to run as Hillary's running mate. It won't happen, but why not? As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt then was just a bit to the right of where Hillary is now. And that kind of fusion might lead to a realignment of the parties which has been long overdue.


jerrye92002 said...

I'm not sure a "realignment of the parties" is what is needed. The problem is that the two parties seem to operate for partisan advantage rather than for solving the "problems" they are sent to DC to solve. Take the government "shutdown" as an example. The amount of money in dispute was trivial. The amount of money "shut off" was a small percentage of the budget, and the "full faith and credit" was never in any danger whatsoever. Yet Obama and the Democrats savaged the Republicans and deliberately made the shutdown "as painful as possible." Repeated compromises from the Republicans were rebuffed for pure partisan advantage. Democrats generally get the better of these fights, but it seems as if the country is the loser.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the two parties seem to operate for partisan advantage rather than for solving the "problems" they are sent to DC to solve.

I hear that often, and I have never been sure of the distinction between that and the doing of what their voters elected them to do. As for the shutdown, many people have told me that shutting down the government has little impact on the government which makes me wonder why some are so eager to employ it as a tactic. As for the politics is concerned, when one side makes a disastrous mistake, it doesn't make a lot of sense nor is it unfair for the other side to take advantage of it.

As for the various compromises, it's very easy to criticize. It's just about always possible to say my side gave up, and got too little from the other side in return. I guess there were two problems with the shutdown strategy, if Republicans are to believed. First, shutdowns have little impact on the status quo, reducing it's value as a bargaining chip, and secondly, Republicans were to place conditions on something they were already duty bound to provide, that is, government. The result was that they lost the public debate, and their overall bargaining position was weakened, although not very much.


jerrye92002 said...

It's true, but I have pretty much disqualified those candidates that tell me they will "go to Washington to fight for you." Only if they later on say what principles or issues or solutions they will "fight to pass" do I come back to them (or if they are, at day's end, the best candidate on the ballot).

The shutdown was the only "tactic" available to Republicans to gain consideration for what were some very important issues. Rather than consider those issues rationally or even compromise, Obama and the Democrats seized the issue, amplified it far beyond the reality, and used it for crass partisan political advantage. This wasn't "government," this was war by other means. Makes you wish the adults were in charge.

Not sure Trump is that adult, with his schoolyard taunts and tantrums, but he sure does point out that those in charge aren't doing their jobs at all well.