Thursday, August 27, 2015

Oh yes we are.

That’s why the rest of the candidates should be scared. To get these crowds for Bush or Walker or Kasich, you would have to round up the people at gun point. Even then, you would
probably have to lock the gates to keep the people from fleeing the arena once the dreary dullard started talking. Those people at the Trump rally are not buying what the GOP is selling, even if they may not be sold on Trump as a candidate.[1]
The Z Man wrote a very good article about Trump and made a very good point about the "collapse of the middle," but even so he exhibits that "he's not a really serious candidate" condescension.

Is there any other candidate we DO agree with completely, for gosh sakes? And Trump is not a serious candidate but those other presidential wannabes ARE?!

How is it clear to every pundit but me that these other contenders

  1. are not mouthing platitudes and talking points,
  2. are not praying like hell that no one asks them a substantive question, and
  3. have a white paper in their back pockets on all major issues?

What's the Rubio (ineligible) position on Chinese currency manipulation? The Bush position on Agenda 21? The Kasich position on the Supreme Court's dishonest decision on Obamacare and sodomite "marriage"? The Graham position on voter ID? The Huckabee position on the undeclared war on Syria and demonization of Vladimir Putin? The Paul position on the Court's dishonest expansion of the Commerce Clause and Congress's complicity therein? The Cruz (ineligible) position on the incompatibility of Islam's death penalty for apostasy with the Constitution and with the oath of naturalization?

I like Kathleen's comment on this same article:

I’ve always said that Shrillary wasn’t going to be the nominee. Glad everyone’s catching up with me. So both parties are in chaos now. Good. Shoving Leftist big-government policies and open-border cultural suicide immigration down our collective throats has not had the desired reaction for the ruling class. Excuse us Great Unwashed peons as we vomit up this forced feeding. And that’s why Trump is popular. He’s a giant FU to the establishment wing of both parties.
Yes, indeed. That is what he is and may he live long and prosper.

Fisk all the other mealy-mouthed candidates who would turn white as a ghost at the mention of the words "deport them all!"

Notes
[1] "Something’s Happening Here." By The Z Man, 8/22/15.

7 comments:

  1. Your first paragraph pretty much describes any politician.

    That said, what Trump's saying resonates with a lot of people obviously and there's always the possibility he is sincere. If he's not then we've seen that movie before (Wilson on entry into war, FDR on dedication to limited government in 1932). And who is under the illusion these days that it makes a difference? Trump's exciting because at least he's willing to go way out there and heap scorn on political correctness. He is moving the debate in an unprecedented way and is serving as a useful focal point for Tea Party frustration. The elites think they can ignore that ad inf. but it ain't so at all.

    The way he speaks of immigration and Mexican and Chinese government screwing indicates that he's thought this stuff through and so doesn't have to phone home to know what he can say. None of the others impress me on immigration, most having been mealymouthed on that topic when they were trying to test the water, adjust their sails, etc.

    To speak of Trump as a "classic narcissist" or an "out of control narcissist" is to be too much in the category of those whose utterances I've compiled in two previous posts. I hear that and I merely think self confidence. No way can Trump be compared to Obama who is sui generis. Patton used to wear a polished steel helmet with pearl-handled revolvers on his belt but he got 'er done in a major way. Patton had the Soviet scum pegged. If it took his being a narcissist to do that then Trump's just fine by me, though I still don't agree it's an accurate characterization. I would also like to know in what way the other aren't narcissists. It takes a fair amount of guts to say, "I'm presidential timber." The others are just more close-mouthed in my view. Their like Zorba's classic observation, "Clever people are like grocers. They weigh everything."

    So yes I do want such a man as president. What his Conservative, Inc. critics don't like about him -- frankness -- they delight in characterizing as impulsiveness.

    I am positively disposed to Cruz and he's been supportive of Trump. Alas, he's ineligible, so whether he will "grow" on the immigration topic is irrelevant for purposes of the presidential contest.

    We'll get a Trump one way or another. This is our last chance to do it the easy way. Option B won't be fun.

    ReplyDelete
  2. what national opinion and the courts have decided matters a great deal. That issue is settled I'm rather certain.

    I sincerely hope that's not right, but in any event nothing was settled by them. Several people challenged Obama in court to prove his eligibility, but he never did. Instead, he paid lawyers millions to argue (successfully) that his challengers had no standing to sue him. Instead of simply producing his birth certificate.

    Now, the point is, any of the other candidates for election would have had standing, but none stepped up to the plate. Fifty Secretaries of State had the power to demand his birth certificate before certifying his candidacy. None did.

    Trump would.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess I'm old-fashioned or a little bit statist, but I wish Congress would pass a law in the next few weeks about just what "naturalized citizen" means. Granted, the Supreme Court often tells Congress to be explicit, and then turns around and calls a fee a tax (which is, a priori, unconstitutional.)

    But if we're gonna start lionizing Rubio and Jindal, I'd sure like something definite before the idiot leftists start yammering. Yes, I've googled it and it *seems* like Rubio is ok. But if the idiots can claim that Hillary and Lerner broke no laws, then EVERYTHING is up for grabs. (Which, of course, is their intent.)

    As far as Trump? Ok, sir. What is your opinion on the debt? On the percentage of that debt based on entitlements? What are your thoughts on the runaway cost of the medical/insurance/government cabal that violates the RICO act and other laws?

    You're obviously smart - or at least smart enough to get rich. But tell the American people what you think of the Kelo decision. Tell us what you think of global warming. Tell us what you think of the EPA, HUD and the Department of Education.

    Granted, none of the other wannabes are answering those questions. But you're running as the outspoken guy, and we'd love to hear some truth.

    Tim Turner

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr.D, I don't think the issue of eligibility was settled by the elections any more than the issue of secession was settled by the Civil War. All that was settled in that war was who had the most powerful military.

    Public opinion is worthless on just about any issue you want to mention. Even the patriots who understand the implications of mass immigration are almost evenly balanced by morons on the other side who don't. 2016 to determine exact percentages . . . .

    I like Steve Deace a lot. He's been a talk show host on WHO radio in Des Moines. (Motto: "Love God, tell the truth, and make money.") He's a pretty savvy and entertaining fellow who says expediency is always the wrong choice. We've paid the price of expediency with regard to the Supreme Court's betrayal on the Commerce Clause in a horrible way and I don't think we should cede the issue of presidential qualification to the Ds and Rs who want to look the other way.

    I'd rather Cruz and Jindal were a legit candidates but they aren't and alas they must find other venues for their insights and experience to do some good.

    I don't at all see Trump as a loose cannon. He's way off the reservation and wreaking havoc behind enemy lines. That's something else entirely. Please read thru my three posts on all the vitriol that's been heaped on Trump. If you believe Trump is reckless then so be it. I assume you do so after a fair consideration of all the facts. The people who have taken after Trump are nothing less than reckless, even scurrilous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnalogMan, it's precisely that failure to challenge Obama that provides the contrast between Trump. All the others have chosen to tip toe around the issue of qualification (not to mention mass immigration and the obvious forgery that his posted "birth certificate" is) but Trump has chosen place his finger directly on the nerve that is open borders, among other things.

    There's no need at all for him to concern himself with the issue of constitutional qualification, of course. Somehow the principle has been "established" that Trump has an obligation to comment on UFOs and transubstantiation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Turner, I don't think there's much doubt what a naturalized citizen is. The left, however, is going to great lengths to try to extinguish any distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen." The Court hasn't ruled on the letter term but these days I'd prefer the opinion of the cashier down at the grocery store on that matter to anything this corrupt court might come up with.

    I don't think Rubio is eligible. But everything IS up for grabs. If a fine is not a tax but is a tax and sodomite marriage can be found to be one of those things accidentally left out of the Constitution then you know that the Court is capable of anything (except a principled interpretation of the Constitution).

    Trump isn't running as "the outspoken guy" but as "an outspoken guy." As I indicate above, that doesn't require him to comment on substantive issues in a way that is not required of the competition.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.