Jeb Bush to meet with Cruz, Rubio and Kasich
Hmmm.. can we say "sore losers". Jebby boy just cannot handle he is the anointed one, and that hoodlum Trump took it from him illegally....
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Which presidential candidate will do the least harm?
BY DONALD J. BOUDREAUX | Tuesday, March 8, 2016, 9:00 p.m.
Email Newsletters
Sign up for one of our email newsletters.
The November election will almost surely feature an unprecedentedly bad choice: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. A calculating, power-mad machine politician with a history of duplicity and rule-breaking versus an economically ignorant and boorish rabble-rousing American version of Mussolini and Peron. This “choice” is akin to one between being killed by garroting or by being burned at the stake.
The only “benefit” of a Clinton victory is that it means a Trump defeat. Ditto for a Trump victory.
At this moment — my assessment might change tomorrow — I have a slight preference for a Trump victory. The reason is that the same mainstream media that would fawn idiotically over a Clinton administration would be appropriately merciless on a Trump administration. President Trump would not receive, because he does not deserve, any benefit of the doubt. President Clinton would receive, even though she does not deserve, every benefit of the doubt. This almost-certain difference in press treatment would tightly check the policies of President Trump while they would fuel those of President Clinton.
Also, President Trump might inadvertently scrub off of the presidency the aura of faux majesty that now encrusts it. The president is a human being — a naked and imperfect ape, like the rest of us. Yet he's treated, because of his high office, as if he is uniquely wonderful and valuable to Americans. He's not. Finally, unlike Trump, Clinton has a political track record. It's ugly. Of course, like the typical politician, Clinton changes her stated opinions to win votes, so we know that she's unprincipled. But to the extent that we can infer from her record any of her “beliefs,” it's clear that she has no understanding of economics. And her instincts are those of a central planner — a harsh nanny, a pitiless schoolmarm, an officious elite with no trust in ordinary people to live their lives as they choose rather than as she and her fellow intellectual elites suppose ordinary people should live their lives.
On foreign policy, she's not only hawkish, but also — as her actions as secretary of State prove — an unusually reckless hawk.
No one who is as obsessed as Clinton obviously is with gaining power should be trusted with power. Nothing good will come of a Clinton presidency; it will be calamitous, at home and abroad.
But I do understand those who fear Trump more than they fear Clinton. Trump's lack of a political track record makes a President Trump even less predictable than a President Clinton. And while being less predictable means, in the abstract, that the policies pursued by Trump might turn out to be surprisingly better than those pursued by Clinton, in practice such an outcome is unlikely.
Nearly everything spouted from Trump's loud mouth should frighten the bejesus out of sane adults. Build a border wall? “Protect” ourselves from low-priced goods from China? “Rough up” protesters at political rallies? Really? These are the rantings of a thug, not the proposals of a civilized liberty-loving man.
One thing now seems likely: Come noon on Jan. 20, 2017, presidential power will be held by someone unprecedentedly untrustworthy to hold it.
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Our forefathers Hated, yes they had physical animosity toward, demonocracy! which is and has certainly turned out to be...Mob Rule, ruled by those that know no rules, ruled by those that can't rule themselves and ruled by those that know squat beyond the temptations of their brain at ANY given moment in time.
A perfect description of many recent mob scenes
In the last couple of years across the country.
Then I observed her and I liked her less.
At the same time the media fell in love with her.
Then I observed her vilify the female victims of her
Husband.
At that the media gave the impression that she was a strong woman to be admired.
I felt she was an enabler.
All of this is only the 1st inning of her history.
I used to not like her.
I still don't.
This only shows that the Republicans can be endlessly stupid. They are becoming experts in party division leading to loss.Their best procedure would be to announce a party unity, say something patriotic, and finish with "Let the best man win." If anything happens at the convention that shows the candidate got there through some sort of inside deal, then Hello Hillary and good bye Republican party.
If the politicians make a promise, you can take it to the bank.
And use their trash bin..
The center IS the Constitution.
These may be naive questions b/c I haven't studied this process. I imagine these people are obsessed with being president and even if the party establishment offered them some connections with foreign oil deals or financial company advisory positions worth $100 million, the candidates don't care b/c there's only one POTUS and they want to be it. Again, I may be very naive in this thinking.
The scenario would be that Trump has a bunch of votes, Cruz has a bunch and then Kasich and Marco have the rest. No one budges. Party Elders urge that the party pick someone as a compromise candidate and everyone switches to them therefore no one wins.
I did a quick bit of research and the last Republican convention that didn't have a first ballot victory was 1948. Interestingly Dewey had 434 out of 1094 on the first ballot 515 on the second, picking up some votes from various of the 7 candidates and then it was unanimous on the third.
I think they are fooling themselves, if Trump (or Cruz) goes into the convention a clear leader they will probably wind up the nominee -- anything else would piss off just too many people.
It's not out of the question for Trump and Cruz to band together and do a Trump/Cruz ticket. If they presented a united front and had the vast majority of the votes it would be hard to argue with them. And they might since both are considered outsiders and have the most to to risk by letting the Party Elders decide.
Of course everyone playing wants to be President, but VP gives you the presumption that you are the front runner in the next one. Certainly Cruz and Rubio (I don't see him as a player in this) are young enough that they will actually be better positioned to run in 4 or 8 years.
Sure as heck won't be the principled Cruz.
I'm suddenly thinking how Dr. Frankenstein (the GOP elite) inadvertently created a loose cannon for a monster.
The Boris Karloff version also had silly looking hair.
I can't see Cruz, tho. And Jib the Shrub? Someone should wake him up from his delusional fantasy.
Maybe Jeb and the rest of the pro-Clinton party-busters should meet (again?) with their fraulein Leader's secret rep and strategize how they can monkey-wrench that.
Figures.
Ex patria is not a bad place to live but
I'm still loyal to the Constitution ....which in this day and age makes me an enemy of the State.
in the mix. . Jeb can't pull this thing too far. . after
next tuesday, the list of sore losers will congeal. -- j
.
http://www.plusaf.com/letters/trump/t...
When you see this, remember exactly --who-- is driving splitting and dividing and conquering the RP, and who that splitting and destroying benefits. (If you need a clue, look for the pantsuit)...
Another Clinton trick. Someone ought to send Jib packing. And he can take Romnuts along with him.
He's so lame he refuses to realize the Jib has been cut and his boat has sailed. Maybe he can get his mommy up there to stand up for his plot to get Hellary elected by destroying the GOP.
I know that if anything, Snowden might consider getting out of Russia if Trump is elected. Putin hated Obama so kept Snowden to spite Obama. That might end, tho, after Obama is out
Unless you are being straight up honest, its very hard to just be there and answer the myriad of questions that reporters and opponents toss up.
Also, since its not scripted like with Hildebeast and perhaps Sanders, you have to be able to be fast on your feet to answer to the best of your limited knowledge (at least while a candidate). They aren't briefed on all aspects of how the government is working in advance !!
I would pick honesty and a bit of crassness sometimes over hiding and dishonesty any day of the week.
As I said, I think that to get to where he is at business wise, he would be much more serious and deliberate carefully before reaching a decision once he is president and has the benefit of all the facts surrounding the issues.
Great Qualifications. The nuts and bolts of the Trump Platform. Thank you.
All people should have basic human rights, and I wouldnt string someone up even because of their culture. One could argue that the muslims who chant "dealt to america" kind of fall into another category that is particularly troubling.
I would gladly say that. Especially since government doesnt supply anything- it just steals from the ones who have worked for it and gives it to others. I am tired of working so that others dont have to.
The following will be quite beyond terms2limited but I'll add them nonetheless.
Racism according to the left - whatever we say it means at that moment.
Racism is forming opinions or taking actions for or against any particular individual or groups of individuals based on previously conceived notions of the speakers racial superiority and the inferiority of the target or target audience without facts in evidence.
Dictionary....Full Definition of racism. 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
racism - definition of racism in English from the Oxford ...
The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/di...
racism definition, meaning, what is racism: the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of…. Learn more.
Racism - definition of racism by The Free Dictionary
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on ...
Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Jump to Etymology, definition and usage - The term racism is a noun describing the state of being ... It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ..."
Applied as a method of revenge or retaliation is often called reverse racism and no group of the human race is immune from that form as they are not immune from overt racism
Prejudice which is not confined to racial use is judging before facts in evidence. Post judice is judging after facts are in evidence
Belonging to a particular group does not automatically make one an active member of that group e.g. the womens movement principally the NOW organization abandoned their principles and their sisters in favor of supporting Clinton I and Clinton II. Clinton II is now calling in that marker once again.
The terms do not automatically exclude nor include any particular individual especially those who have no discernible principles. Donald Trump is an example of that condition along with his supporters paid or volunteer.
Thus we are left with what he had said and what he has done in the past and the same for the others.
The objectivist will take anything said by a politician with a huge dose of salt precisely because of the lack of demonstrated principles.
A demonstration of lack of principles is the constant changing, dodging, evading, and redefining of any particular topic with no facts produced in evidence
Thus Plato becomes Playdough. and Kant becomes cant and then can't.
One thing I have to say Trump has done- he has blown open the political correctness chains that we have accepted all these years. Now its OK to say what you think- be true to yourself- and if your intial thought were wrong you can change what you think. When people are constrained by political correctness, its harder to live in the present.
But even that's not the killer circumstance.
Ted Cruz is not eligible to the office. (Neither is Rubio, but that doesn't matter; Rubio is finished.) Ted Cruz was born out-of-country, and not on any military station--in fact his mother never served in the military, nor in the diplomatic corps. And Ted's father didn't get naturalized until this century.
I know some of you here don't know what to make of Trump. Some of you compare him to Hank Rearden, but others compare him to Orren Boyle or James Taggart. But at least Trump is eligible.
And it's too late to substitute anyone else. No name reco.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/va...
Scroll down to chapter 19, and the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen."
Then search on that phrase, with the name John Jay added.
Then search the case of Minor v. Happersett in 1875.
And finally: cite me a case that the Court decided on the merits to resolve the issue. Nothing less than a case decided on the merits can set a precedent.
I don't like it it doesn't matter. did you file a challenge? Or just blather....your opinion doesn't count. Court rulings do. I can now run for President. Why do you think Trump quit playing that tune? You want to back a left wing socialist corporatist at least come out and say so.... Definitely you are not a friiend of the Constitution.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/o...
If Harvard sided with Cruz and no challenge to a court ruling has been filed I fail to see how personal opinion carries any weight at all except feather weight and inconclusive shoddy research.
Can you or anyone else show me one case that any judge has actually decided on the merits?
But Mrs. Cruz was not an ambassador nor any other kind of diplomatic officer.
What we are contemplating is acceding to the abandonment of the Vattel standard. Which every President except Jefferson, Arthur, and Obama has met.
For Jefferson, the Framers made an exception: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
Arthur skated on this. He hid his Irish parentage.
About Obama, enough said.