The Bizarre Trump Consensus

The rate at which anti-and pro-Trump Republicans have traded arguments over the course of this campaign is head-spinning. The pro-Trump right has found a bizarre set of allies on the left. Cautious liberals might like their chances in November, but many are warning their allies not to sleep on Donald Trump. In fact, conservatives who are skeptical of the reality television star’s prospects in the general election are unconvinced of his electability for the same reason that some Democrats are entirely certain Trump is easily beatable: the GOP candidate’s liberal inclinations.

Trump’s ability to appeal to white working-class voters who once made up the backbone of the Democratic coalition that has led some center-left observers to caution humility ahead of November.

Between Democrats and pro-Trump Republicans, there are a number of non-superficial agreements. Their most enduring schism appears to be their mutual desire to defeat one another at the polls. One curious source of agreement between these two warring factions is that Trump bucks conservative orthodoxy just enough to make it a competitive race in November. With that concession, the left has already won a fight more far-reaching than any one election cycle. 

- Noah Rothman

A Good Monday Morning

Something Weird Going on in Crazyville

With all our our attention focused on the Drama / Pissfight of the Trump-Cruz nomination battle, few of us payed little attention to what has been going on over in the Capital of Crazyville, the Democrat party. With Hillary having a firm thigh lock on the nomination and the Bernie forces having begun to see the light, without much notice the granddaddy of leftist loony websites, firmly in loser Bernie Sander's corner, believe the establishment standard bearer of the Democrat Party isn't progressive enough and tainted goods are suggesting.........and I shit you not............Why not vote for Donald Trump?   

But just not necessarily for the reasons you might think: 

A liberal case for Donald Trump

"There are perhaps no three words more jarring to liberals than “President Donald Trump.” The GOP front-runner and presumptive nominee has undoubtedly made enemies with his nativist rhetoric and bellicose persona. That said, now that the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, with the former secretary of state essentially guaranteed the nomination, many liberals and progressives are preparing, once again, to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice may not be as clear as some Democrats believe — especially if Democrats can take back the Senate and assure themselves of a check on a GOP House.

Once you’ve let that sink in, try this: There is a liberal case to be made for Donald Trump. The prospect of Trump defeating Clinton this November is not necessarily the apocalypse that some would lead you to believe. Here are some of the reasons why.

1.) He’ll Change the Conversation

Perhaps the best thing I can say about Trump is that he speaks his mind. This sometimes leads to some pretty outlandish things, but not always.  Trump has spent much of his time lately, railing against free trade and NAFTA, as well as the gross inequality in our system. Trump often talks about raising taxes on “hedge fund guys,” and he has acknowledged that the primary process is skewed in favor of the establishment.

Like Sanders, Trump is neither beholden to special interests, nor coordinating with a Super PAC. This alone sets him apart from the other candidates in the race — especially Hillary Clinton. The parties pick the candidates, and regardless of what their policies are, the people fall in line with them eventually. Power never truly changes hands.

Excusing the fact that Trump, himself, is a corporate interest, he would shake the current system to its core — which needs to happen....."

2.) That said, most of his policies are DOA

In all likelihood, Trump will not accomplish anything. He has made serious enemies in both parties and the media, whom he feels have slighted him, and I cannot see him working with those people. Trump holds grudges. He has filed more frivolous lawsuits than anyone in the public eye — or maybe we just hear about them more. Either way, politics do require compromise to one degree or another, and without it, nothing gets done. As such, when Trump finds himself up against institutional and bureaucratic resistance, it is unlikely he will deliver. For example, his wall — paid for by Mexico — is never going to happen. Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.? Slim chance if any.

Even if he does work with Congress, he is still not going to get his social policies passed. The Senate with its filibuster and cloture rules is enough of a check on that, even if Democrats do not have a majority. Basically, we will not have immigration reform, but we will not have people rounded up in the streets and deported. 

But most important of all: I do not need to trust Donald Trump in the same way I would have to trust Hillary Clinton were she elected. The reason for this is very simple: Trump represents the GOP brand, and Clinton claims the mantle of progressive. If Trump fails to accomplish anything in office, or if he manages to do whatever damage he can do, he will represent the Republicans. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he represents America’s crypto-fascist element. The best way to discredit both of these groups is to let them fail on their own. Trump will not succeed as a president.

On the flip side, if Hillary Clinton screws up by compromising too much (which is likely) or doing too little (also likely), progressivism will take a big hit in the public eye, which is something we cannot afford....."

3.) The 2020 election looms

Now we arrive at the point where I start sounding old Jud Crandall from Stephen King’s “Pet Semetary.” [sic] Progressives and Democrats should be focusing on the election in 2020 because 1) it is a census year — meaning the makeup of the House of Representatives for the following decade will depend on down-ballot voting — and 2) there may be more openings on the Supreme Court...."

4.) I’m Not Afraid of Donald Trump

Some of you might be reading this and thinking to yourselves: “That’s all well and good, but Trump is dangerous.” I understand those feelings. Donald Trump’s messages on social policy have been mixed at best, and fascistic at worst. His approach to climate science is frightening considering the dire situation our planet is in. Trump is also the kind of man who would use the office of the president to aggrandize himself, and punish his detractors — well, attempt to do so, like in his many libel and slander suits. Over the last twenty years the powers of the president have expanded considerably as commander-in-chief, and that’s concerning, too. Additionally, there is the matter of the Supreme Court of United States. 

We have no way of predicting who Trump would appoint, but we can speculate with Hillary Clinton. While she has said that her litmus test for nominees will be commitment to overturning Citizens United v. FEC, there is little reason to trust her given how much she benefits from the current campaign finance system...."

_________________________________________

So there you have it. The anti-establishment Dem's calling to jump the curb and vote for the anti-establishment Republican. Believing they will make gains or recapture the senate in the next mid terms as the out of office party, hate Hillary as much as we do and believe Trump will be just a blow-hard failure and so damage the brand that a progressive will walk right into to the White House in in 2020 and save us all!

Things are gettin' crazier and crazier.  

[Salon.com]

Being President Is Hard

2009

2012

2016

Read Further of the Immense Trials and Tribulations of a President
Here

Jeb Bush Works to Remain Relevant in National Politics

Obama In No Position To Say The Presidency Isn’t a Reality Show

In response to Donald Trump's impending ascension to the Republican Party nomination, President Obama does what he does worse - lecture:

"We are in serious times, and this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States. Every candidate, every nominee, needs to be subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny."

Oh Really. And what would President Obama know about being subject to exacting standards and genuine scrutiny? After making a mockery of the office of the Presidency, Obama is in no position to criticize Donald Trump's candidacy as a reality show when his entire 2nd term has been little more then a reality show with a fawning press in tow.

Let's not forget that this is the same man who consented to being "interviewed" by a woman who eats Fruit Loops in her bathtub, also had time to sit between two ferns with Zach Galfianakis, hang out in the wilderness with Bear Grylls and get coffee with Jerry Seinfeld to name just a few.

It's hard to listen to Obama say we live in serious times when he was perfectly content to watch a baseball game in Havana with Raul Castro and dance The Last Tango in Buenos Aires as Brussels burned. I'm sure President Obama would have hit the links if he could have, but I guess he reserves that for really special occasions such as when American journalists are beheaded by ISIS.

While I believe Republicans may have got us into a fine mess by seeing fit to nominate a Hillary donor to be the standard bearer, Obama is not the person who can credibly deliver that message where it concerns Trump's shortcomings. If not for the incompetence, condescension and disingenuousness of a Barack Obama there would be no prospect of a Donald Trump in The White House to begin with.

[New York Times]
[American Spectator]

The Class Assignment for the Next Six Months

The Silliness of an Anti-Trump Protest Vote Campaign

Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post details how multiple sources confirm there are several groups with access to funding, in communication with one another,working on a third-party run for an anti-Trump protest candidate and how they fantasize they could win the election:

"With an optimistic, down-to-earth candidate with some crossover appeal, a third candidate could well pick off states including Arizona, Utah and Texas from Trump and challenge Clinton in states like Ohio, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada that she needs to get to 270. Let’s also remember that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson may be in the race, further dividing the vote. At some point, one sees that we might realistically have a situation in which no one gets to 270 electoral votes. (By then, Clinton’s and Trump’s unfavorables would be astronomically high.) The House of Representatives then decides the presidency, and the Senate picks the vice president."

This is obviously nonsensical fantasy in the vain of websites like....well you know, but let's go through the scenario to appreciate fully why it can't possibly work: 

The protest candidate will likely start off with far fewer resources than the major candidates, virtually no national name recognition, and practically no campaign infrastructure. Supposing that he can somehow best both Trump and Clinton in one or two small Republican states, the electoral votes he takes will all come out of the total that the Republican nominee needs to win. The protest candidate isn't going to “challenge Clinton” in purple and blue states. He is going to deliver those states to her on a silver platter by splitting the Republican vote. These are states that Republican nominees with total party unity have struggled to win in good years and have lost in the last two elections, but we're supposed to believe that the anti-Trump protest candidate is going to be competitive in them? That's silly. Anti-Trump Republicans grossly overestimate how many voters they have on their side.

The more successful the protest candidate is, the larger Clinton's margin of victory over Trump could be. The protest candidate won't be taking any votes that Clinton was likely to get anyway. An anti-Trump protest campaign will achieve two things: it will give Clinton a victory she maybe would not otherwise have, and it will give Trump supporters a scapegoat for their defeat. Instead of preventing any candidate from getting to 270 electoral votes, it will make it easier for Clinton to get over 350. No doubt Trump loses badly in this scenario.  All that a protest campaign does is give Clinton the biggest election victory for the incumbent party’s nominee since 1988. The rift that will create on the right will not be healed anytime soon.

It is often said that a protest candidate would give anti-Trump Republicans a reason to turn out to vote in down-ballot races, but presumably the Republicans most disgusted by Trump’s nomination are ideological voters and strong partisans who turn out to vote for all their party's candidates no matter what. These are voters that are probably most aware of the need to turn out for state and Congressional races, and so will already be showing up whether there is a protest candidate or not. In other words, these are the people that don't need a reason to show up, so the one possible upside of the protest campaign would be redundant. 

The protest presidential candidate isn't going to bring that many people to the polls who weren't already going to be there, and his presence in the race will give a lot of state and House candidates headaches as they will be forced to declare for or against the spoiler candidate. 

Anti-Trump Republicans can do as they like, and they are certainly under no obligation to back a nominee they find so unacceptable. But they should do so fully understanding that a protest campaign is a pointless exercise that will cause them blame for Clinton’s victory.

___________________________________ 

Is Donald Trump a giant Douchebag? Yes he is. Will a self-aggrandizing business man who comes off as a Carnival Barker who promises us the moon be the leader the country needs now? We don't know. But one thing is for sure, we know what we will get with a corrupt, treasonous Hillary Clinton.  And as you can see above, a protest vote, or a non vote protest for that matter gets you just that, a Hillary Clinton victory. As of now, Donald Trump is the only thing standing between Hillary and the White house. Now, just think about that for awhile. 

[The Washington Post]
[The American Conservative] 

The Dalai Lama on Gun Control

It's Now Officially Hog Season

Donald Trump’s Vice-Presidential Choice: Will It Be Conventional, Or Crazy?

At least for the moment, there don't seem to be many top Republicans who would be interested in being Donald Trump’s running mate.  It’s a time-honored tradition for politicians to deny any interest in the vice presidency. But this year, with the possibility of Donald J. Trump as the Republican nominee, they really mean it.’

“Never,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who is still running against Mr. Trump. “No chance.”

“Hahahahahahahahaha,” wrote Sally Bradshaw, a senior adviser to Jeb Bush, when asked if he would consider it.

“Scott Walker has a visceral negative reaction to Trump’s character,” said Ed Goeas, a longtime adviser to the Wisconsin governor.

Or, as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, “That’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic.”

A remarkable range of leading Republicans, including Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, have been emphatic publicly or with their advisers and allies that they do not want to be considered as Mr. Trump’s running mate. The recoiling amounts to a rare rebuke for a front-runner: Politicians usually signal that they are not interested politely through back channels, or submit to the selection process, if only to burnish their national profiles.

But Mr. Trump has a singular track record of picking fights with obvious potential running mates like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has indicated a lack of interest in the vice presidency generally and has yet to reconcile with Mr. Trump publicly. Ms. Haley and another potential pick, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, have sharply criticized Mr. Trump at recent party gatherings and do not want to be associated with his sometimes-angry tone, according to advisers and close associates who have spoken with these Republicans.

Several Republican consultants said their clients were concerned that Mr. Trump’s unusually high unfavorable ratings with all voters and his unpopularity among women and Hispanics could doom him as a general election candidate and damage their own future political prospects if they were on his ticket.

But Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, as well as Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, said in interviews that they would consider joining the ticket if Mr. Trump offered. Two governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, have also told allies that they were open to being Mr. Trump’s running mate.

Asked if he was surprised about the array of Republicans who are uncomfortable being his running mate, Mr. Trump said:

“I don’t care. Whether people support or endorse me or not, it makes zero influence on the voters. Historically, people don’t vote based on who is vice president. I want someone who can help me govern.”

_________________________________________________

Given the controversy surrounding his campaign, it’s not surprising that Trump may face some difficulty in finding a top tier candidate to fill the position of Vice-Presidential running mate. Indeed, from the perspective of a either a younger Republican politician who may have ambitions aimed at higher office of their own, or a more experienced politician whose selection would be intended to give a ticket with Trump at the top a sense of experience and gravitas that it might lack, signing on to a ticket with Donald Trump could end up being a political death warrant. For one thing, losing Vice-Presidential candidates have historically faded away into political obscurity, rarely heard from again.

Of course, Trump has spent this entire campaign succeeding by doing the unexpected so maybe those jokes about him picking a former Celebrity Apprentice contestant like Gary Busey or Meatloaf isn’t far off off the mark. 

[New York Times]  
[Outside the Beltway]

Press 1 for Spanish, Press 2 for English.

They are taught to believe the US stole Mexican land. It's called the Reconquista. They believe in a fairytale of a magical Aztecan land called Aztlan. They've been pumped full of this garbage by a fascist named Jose Vasconcelos who was in charge of culture and education after the revolution. Vasconcelos called for the extermination of Anglos and capitalism.

Their goal is to populate the SW states, drain the US of its resources through welfare, and then reclaim it for Mexico through violent uprising.

Kids, wearing sombreros and ironically holding signs reading “No hate,” screamed “F*ck you!” repeatedly at the passing motorists. One of the children in the center of the action can be seen holding a Bernie Sanders sign.

Hillary Clinton campaign signs could also be seen in the crowd. 

Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor

Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.

The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to "unaccompanied children," more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration's programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.

A Good Monday Morning

The Big Lie

Multiculturalism. It does not work, it has never worked, and cannot work. It's pointless antagonism without end, and benefits only the leftist political class. If it weren't all about tearing down American thought and values, proponents wouldn't attempt to turn everything into the hell holes they came from in the first place. 

Hillary and Bill Take A Break From the Campaign Trail