Something odd is happening on this blog.  It snuck up on me, through my haze of scotch.  (self confession is good for the soul)  Has anyone noticed that we had full consensus on Trump?  From Cargo to Ed….Trump has no supporters on this blog.

That must mean that Trump is a really bad candidate.

Let me throw this one out…what if Trump wins the Republican nomination.  what will party Republicans do?

I used to sit on the Democratic committee in Gainesville.   I stopped because I wanted to be able to vote for whom I wanted.  Real party people are expected to vote for whomever is that party’s nominee.  Some people just vote across party lines.  I do.  I don’t really care.

However, I think we have a sufficient number of people on this blog who couldn’t vote Democratic if you held a gun to their head.  Am I that far off?

 

 

60 thoughts on “The Trump consensus

  1. Scout

    The annual Republican Advance is this weekend at the Homestead. I’m going to miss it because I will be on my way back from a business trip to California. I used to always attend. However, I’ve missed a few in recent years with absolutely no regret. This year is one I would really like to be there for. The conversations in the hallways would be fascinating.

  2. Cargosquid

    I’m still deciding on what to do.
    I most certainly cannot support either socialist in the Democrat camp and the Democrats didn’t support Webb. Too bad he didn’t run as a GOP.

    I don’t like Trump. I think he’s a Democrat is GOP clothing. I may have to not pull a lever for President if he is the candidate. But, I will do so if it looks like the Democrat might win. Either of those two is absolute disaster for this nation.

    Cruz 2016

  3. Mom

    Sorry to prove you wrong Moon but The Donald has my full support as the candidate that would create absolute havoc in the ranks of the firmly entrenched bureaucratic machine within the District Lines. Oh what fun I would have if he were elected.

    1. Oh groan!!!! Well, there is one in every crowd. At least you manned up over it.

  4. Mom

    We of the follicularly challenged clan must hang together.

    1. Ha!!! I think you need to pick another person–otherwise I am going to end up with First Dude again. I will be loving life.

  5. Lyssa

    He sounds more George Wallace-ish to me who had been a Democrat (Cargo) and who also attracted the “alienated” white vote.

  6. Cargosquid

    @Mom
    THAT is one of his good points. I do support that.

    I can’t say that the benefit from that outweighs his negatives.

    @Lyssa
    Yep…..he does in some ways….but then, until very recently, Trump WAS a Democrat.
    And populists all sound the same.

  7. Wolve

    Oh, my. The Donald certainly does have everybody in a huff and a panic….except for all those folks out there on the hustings cheering him on. Wait until the next sad jihadi shoe falls, either here or in the UK. Take your pick. I predict UK first because of the recent Parliament decision to start bombing ISIS. And don’t forget al-Qaeda. Looks to me like the pair of them may be in a deadly race for publicity. Vetting review and revisions anyone?

  8. Wolve

    The FBI now says that Syed Rizwan Farook and a neighbor appear to have planned a terrorist operation as long ago as 2012 but seem to have been scared off by FBI arrests in another California terrorist case. It also appears that Farook and his Pakistani bride were discussing jihad via the internet before she ever got to the U.S. The FBI Director has also told Congress that they are looking to see if a “terrorist group” may have had a hand in arranging this deadly marriage.

    I tell you, it isn’t easy trying to keep track of these people BEFORE they kill us.

    1. Lots of people are trying to kill us. The crazies, the jihadists, the drunk drivers. I am not trying to make light of it but its like take a number. I don’t think Trump is anyone’s answer. I think he is dangerous because he stirs up those who want to harm us anyway.

  9. Wolve

    Speaking of the al-Qaeda group, Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP), based in Yemen, put out a long video this week featuring some of their leaders discussing future plans. That includes attacking the US. It does look like they are trying to show everyone that, despite ISIS, they are still a big player in the jihad game. Expect some efforts by them to prove it.

  10. Wolve

    In case anyone has forgotten it in all the political hullabaloo, we are at war.

  11. Lyssa

    War on crime, drugs terrorism, Christmas, racism… Please clarify.

  12. Wolve

    Auld Lang Syne.

    Ibrahimi al-Qosi may have rejoined us for the holiday season. You may or may not remember this fellow. A Sudanese who joined al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but was nabbed by us and stashed away in Gitmo. He plea bargained a charge of conspiracy and material support for terrorism and was released from Gitmo in July 2012. Reports are that he is now one of the chief honchos of AQAP in Yemen. What goes around comes around. Or, as the late and lamented Yogi Berra would have put it: “It’s deja vue all over again.”

    This ain’t your grandfather’s war.

  13. Wolve

    Moon-howler :
    Lots of people are trying to kill us. The crazies, the jihadists, the drunk drivers. I am not trying to make light of it but its like take a number. I don’t think Trump is anyone’s answer. I think he is dangerous because he stirs up those who want to harm us anyway.

    Who stirred up the attackers of 9/11?

    Look, we have some serious holes in our defenses, and we had better do something about it before we lose more lives. Trump or no Trump, they have sworn to kill us. If it takes a large crack down on immigration until we can sort out our apparently inadequate vetting system and make adjustments to our defensive and offensive tactics, then do it. If you have a hole in the hull of your ship, you go into dry dock and fix it. You don’t set out to sea and risk an imitation of the Titanic.

    We have to stop all the political yammering and get our eyes refocused on whether or not our government is doing the kind of job which will give us the best chance of keeping our citizens and residents alive. The first thing we will have to do, IF a decision is made to let thousands of Syrian refugees into this country under the current vetting program, is to spend the money to hire and train a hell of a lot more FBI and other counter terrorist investigative and surveillance personnel and find a way to crack into the current sub rosa communications being used by the terrorists. Tracking is not an easy process. It is labor intensive and time intensive, especially if the targets are wary. Even with enhanced personnel numbers we could take some bad losses.

    The important thing here is American lives. And personally I don’t give a rip sh*t whether any Muslim in this country or anywhere else likes that or not.

    1. I, like the president at the time, was not paying attention. Of course, I didn’t think it was my job to pay attention.

      Wolve, I respect your expertise on terrorism. You know far more about this issue than I do.

      My problem with the current rhetoric is from a humanitarian point of view. We have over a million homeless people in the world because of war. Those people are refugees. They are being twice punished.

      There are people who always want to kill us for whatever reason. Will they want to kill us less because some loud mouth bully broad-brushes all Muslims with the terrorist brush? We are going to have to do better than what Big-Mouth is proposing. That area of the world has been troublesome for centuries to our country. I can remember seeing news clips as a child. My problem with Trump is he is a bigot, and says he isn’t. He is also acting like an ape discovering fire.

      We might have to pony up a lot more money for national security. The battle will go on. I would rather nation build here than in freaking Afghanistan.

    2. Wolve, I also should thank you for living amongst God knows what all those years protecting Americans. I also know Mrs. W and your kids paid a price also. You did it before it was sexy to be a counter counter anti terrorist.

      Question for you….when we let in refugees and immigrants, isn’t there some sort of provision that they behave themselves? I remember reading about the deportation of the likes of Lucky Luciano and other Mafiosos like him. I have no problem keeping a close eye on immigrants, especially from troubled parts of the world. Its sort of like probation.

      I don’t know what you do about home grown terrorists. We seem all hysterical over them also but yet we aren’t willing to limit weapons so that terrorists, regardless of origin can’t get their hands on those weapons of mass destruction.

      I believe that this woman who left her baby had to be some sort of mental defective. Who goes to the trouble of having a baby, bonding with it (human nature) and then turning it over to someone else and going out for the big die by cop? That is sicker than hell. It smacks in the face of all we know about the human condition of motherhood. That’s why I don’t think this killing could be stopped. They didn’t even get their own weapons of mass destruction. Some other toad got it for them.

      BTW, I almost don’t believe the fBI leaks on this story. I have smelled a rat all along. Some parts, I just can’t wrap my head around.

  14. Wolve

    Interesting article in the UK “Express” by Nick Gutteridge on 9 December 15. Despite the lash back at Donald Trump by PM David Cameron and police authorities over so-called “no-go” Muslim areas, some police officers in Britain appear to be saying that Trump is right. They say that there are Muslim-majority neighborhoods in places like London and Birmingham where the officers are always on high personal safety alert and where it is sometimes deemed necessary to seek an o.k. from neighborhood “leaders” to enter and pursue normal police work. Isn’t that just the cat’s pajamas.

  15. Pat.Herve

    well, when one votes in the Republican primary in VA and signs that oath…. that means that they are going to support and vote for Trump.

    maybe they will rethink that oath pledge.

    1. Will Virginia have both a Democratic and Republic primary and if yes, will it be on the same day?

      Has Virginia relaxed its primary regulations?

  16. Steve Thomas

    @Pat.Herve
    Pat..I don’t think the oath is required in a public primary, operated by The State Board of Elections. In these cases, state law applies, and state law makes no provision for oaths. Oaths can be required for a party contest such as convention, mass meeting, or caucus.

    1. You are correct. No oath required for either party in a public primary.

  17. Cargosquid

    @Pat.Herve
    The oath is that you aren’t going to vote for another party’s candidate after participating in choosing the GOP candidate. You can merely not vote for the winner.

  18. Starry flights

    I think the republican establishment will find a way to prevent Trump from becoming the nominee. Here in Virginia the party managed to keep most of the republican candidates not named Romney off the ballot in 2012. Maybe they can do the same with Trump. The party knows that he will cost them not just the White House but the congress and many other offices in 2016

  19. Wolve

    Apparently French eyes have been opened wide. In an Express UK article last week it was reported that the French security services, under special powers granted recently by the legislature, have been searching a number of suspect mosques and other potential terrorist sites. They are also placing certain individuals under house arrest and banning others from leaving the country. At that time, nine were under house arrest, and 22 were banned from leaving.

    According to Interior Minister Cazaneuve, the search finds have been staggering. “In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year.”

  20. Wolve

    Reuters 10 December: A Harvard University poll has found that 60% of young US adults (millenials) either “strongly” or “somewhat” supported sending ground troops to combat militants who have seized territory in Syria and Iraq and carried out terrorist actions elsewhere. That number is up from 47% before the Paris ISIS attacks.

    This surprises me. Comments?

    1. It surprises me also. Maybe they are too young to realize the serious nature of war. I think those of us who have seen the names of our friends carved on the wall, and seen our friends lose children in Iraq and Afghanistan might proceed with a little more caution.

      I am not surer how I feel but it isn’t something to take lightly.

      What do you think, Wolve?

  21. Starryflights

    I@Wolve
    So young people support sending troops into the Middle East to fight Isis. Not even Trump, for all his bluster, has proposed sending large quantities of troops to fight Isis. In fact, Trump has been rather outspoken in opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Where do you stand on sending in troops, wolverine? Just what would you do differently?

    1. That is a very serious statement of intent, for sure. They also openly admit they want voter suppression. In Virginia, we do not register by party. The Charlottesville GOP is certainly trying to get around that rascally little issue. I don’t want to have to register by party…ever.

      The only way I know to legally keep voters from cross pollinating is to hold primaries on the same day. Chose one or the other.

      This oath taking crap reminds me of Reconstruction. The next question is, can they legally require information about me outside the normal voting information? I don’t think I vote to provide either party with information about myself. Voting should not be a data gathering event. Screw them.

  22. Wolve

    @Moon-howler

    I’m not sure yet how I feel about a full fledged ground war against ISIS, especially one depending largely on American forces. I do fear that ISIS will not be defeated by homeland defenses alone without smashing the head of the snake where it lives. It is an old axiom that an army on the defensive will suffer more casualties than one on the offensive. Do we choose the former and put up with casualties for a long, long time, always trying to catch the enemy before he can hit us at home or in our missions abroad; or do we risk military casualties up front in order to end the conflict more quickly once and for all? The latter is not so-called nation building. It is destruction of an enemy force. And I see mostly opinions out there that an air war alone will not accomplish that destruction.

    My personal druthers would be for a truly international ground and air attack on the ISIS caliphate, something on the order of the coalition during the the First Gulf War. But is that possible anymore? Maybe with some of our NATO allies, but I think a key question remains the participation of friendly Middle East nations…and an effective and dependable participation. Scout and I discussed some months ago the possibility of sending and supporting a combined Arab army as the major ground force to wipe out ISIS; but, from what I have read recently, the chances of that seem pretty slim right now. Saudi Arabia and others have a more immediate focus on the mess in Yemen involving both their Iranian and al-Qaeda foes. Egypt is trying to get a military handle on terrorists in the Sinai and on the internal opposition. The Jordanians reportedly are no longer even sending bombing missions against ISIS despite all of the passion after the burning alive of their downed pilot. And Saudi and UAE pilots appear to be conducting only one bombing mission per month against ISIS targets. Yemen air space is where you will find those Saudi pilots. And who knows where Turkey ever is on this thing?

    So, throw in the Iranians and the Russians and the fate of Assad as the wild cards, as well as the fact that Iraqi forces are only just now moving to try to take back Ramadi, just 100 kms from Baghdad, to say nothing of Mosul still being in ISIS hands. Where do you go in an effort to cobble together something viable from all of that? I don’t know. But I do not like the thought of us being put in another situation where our own people bear most of the burden of the ground battle. Somehow a lot of countries have to get together, put aside differences, and declare a common goal, then try to put together the broad and overwhelming coalition which can make that goal a reality. Otherwise we and Europe and other places may be in for a mighty long era of trying to protect the homelands from the terrorist vultures, perhaps with a serious loss of liberty in the name of security.

    As for the millenials and that Harvard survey, I suspect that the kids may be affected somewhat by the same thing which touches most of us: they wouldn’t have to go. It’s those other guys and gals, the thin line of heroes, who would bear the burden and spill the blood. I would bet that a return of the military draft might change those Harvard numbers pretty quick. It ‘s been a long time, but I haven’t forgotten how it was to suddenly have a wartime draft notice in your hand. From the surreal to the real.

    Back to you all.

    1. My thoughts on this subject are a work in progress. What I do not want is a bunch of chest thumping political rah rah rah ..we are going to kick your ass..going on. This is actually a very complex issue. I don’t ever want us to put “boots on the ground” unless we have a clearly stated objective and a clearly stated exit plan.

      I also would want to know a risk assessment…if we do X, will Y happen. We can go in there and battle these thugs for years and have little to show for it. I am also not sure about our allies. That seems to change which ever way the wind is blowing that day.

      We also have better relations, as a nation, with our own population originally from that region. Middle eastern people seem to be assimilated much more in this country. This statement begs the question: who really owns the problem? Us or Europe.

      finally, we are always going to be the dirty dogs because of our relationship with Israel. You know, we can kill a million people and that just isn’t going to change. There is also the misdirected notion of …if there is an Israeli state, there must be an Islamic state. Maybe those wanting to form that state need to do it by trying to establish a democracy….like the Israeli state. I guess that would be too easy.

      Wolve, I don’t know yet. I have a problem committing other people’s family members to war. I have friends who have lost children and I have lost former students. Most Americans talk a big show but they really don’t end up having much skin in the game.

  23. Wolve

    It is now beginning to look very much like the San Bernardino perpetrators were indeed planning something much bigger than the hit on that Christmas party — possibly a school in the area. The LA Times reports that this conclusion is coming from the electronic gear seized by the FBI, which is now diving in a nearby lake to see if they can find more of that gear. This seems more and more like the real deal and not just a violent workplace temper tantrum. Those perps DID try to get away. Maybe they intended to use the Christmas party as a sort of shakedown cruise in preparation for a later, larger hit. Or maybe they decided that the Christmas party would be easier.

  24. Starryflights

    I have to agree with Wolve. Defeating Isis will require a significant number of ground troops, the bulk of whom will be Americans.

    1. Earth altering moment here. Starry and Wolve on the same sheet of music.

  25. Cargosquid

    Starry flights :
    I think the republican establishment will find a way to prevent Trump from becoming the nominee. Here in Virginia the party managed to keep most of the republican candidates not named Romney off the ballot in 2012. Maybe they can do the same with Trump. The party knows that he will cost them not just the White House but the congress and many other offices in 2016

    He has already satisfied the requirements. The last time, the candidates ground game was not up to par.

  26. Cargosquid

    Moon-howler :
    That is a very serious statement of intent, for sure. They also openly admit they want voter suppression. In Virginia, we do not register by party. The Charlottesville GOP is certainly trying to get around that rascally little issue. I don’t want to have to register by party…ever.
    The only way I know to legally keep voters from cross pollinating is to hold primaries on the same day. Chose one or the other.
    This oath taking crap reminds me of Reconstruction. The next question is, can they legally require information about me outside the normal voting information? I don’t think I vote to provide either party with information about myself. Voting should not be a data gathering event. Screw them.

    Voter suppression? Really? That’s what you think it is? Cross voting is cheating. Loosen the tin foil. You bias against the GOP is showing.

    1. See Cargo, you are paranoid. I feel the same way about the Democrats and even removed myself from committee about 15 years ago I felt so strongly about it.

      The difference between you and me is I don’t have a persecution complex. I also refused to sign PWCS’ drug pledge. I was already an employee. I don’t do drugs but I also wasn’t going to sign their stupid ass form as a condition of my continued employment.

      Yes, I did aim this comment at the GOP because it was on their letterhead. What would you call it other than voter suppression?

      Cross voting isn’t cheating. You choose one party or the other. If there aren’t too primaries, Perhaps the party should have thinned the herd themselves.

      What I see is double dipping here. The parties are all too pleased to use the Independents for the votes they need…then scoff us when we dip in the pool too much. You can’t have it both ways.

  27. Cargosquid

    Moon-howler :
    Earth altering moment here. Starry and Wolve on the same sheet of music.

    Fasten your seat belts.

    I agree with everything that Wolverine said. He and I are on the same exact page.

    Which makes this a three way agreement with Starry. I think the planet and stars have moved out of alignment….

    1. Steve is all in also. Geminids tonight!!!!

  28. Cargosquid

    You know…the more that I watch the mainstream GOP try to “manage” things so that Trump will not be the nominee……the more I want him to win.

    I’m voting for Cruz….and Trump isn’t even my second choice….but the GOP is going nuts because there is a candidate that won’t be beholden to the money lenders and the “consultants” that run the party.

    Oh…and if Cruz doesn’t win….he should be appointed to SCOTUS by the next GOP president.

    I think that part is AWESOME.

    1. When will the next GOP president be? 2024?

      Cruz cannot win I do not think. He has made sure he is hated. I would rather have Trump-boy than Cruz. On the other hand,why can’t the GOP nominate someone normal? Bush, Christie, are normal. I might not agree with all policy but they aren’t outliers.

  29. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Bush and Christie are normal?

    See, that’s where we differ. I think Cruz is normal. I think Rubio is normal. I think Bush…. yeah..he’s normal for a mainstream, liberal GOP. Christie should run as a Democrat. He’d have a better chance of winning.

    By the way….Presidents McCain and Romney would like to discuss that “nominating normal” success.

    The problem is that we need to change DC and electing more of the same is going to end this country.

    1. I just think you have a different version of this country than really exists.

      Of course, I don’t wake up every morning politically unhappy.

      Rubio is normal? hmmmmm—that’s a stretch. Maybe more normal about immigration but that’s about it.

      Bush and Christie liberal? ho ho ho. I guess that means I glow in the dark and someone like Censored has bought tickets in the Kremlin?

      You are aware that most people don’t think like you do? I mean across the board.

  30. Kelly_3406

    Air power by itself has never been sufficient to dislodge an occupying force. The fact that Wolve and Starry agree that boots on the ground are needed to defeat ISIS shows that it is a rather obvious point. The current administration knows this also. Nevertheless, it seems very likely that Obama will leave any significant escalation to the next president.

    1. It certainly isn’t our job to go it alone.

  31. Kelly_3406

    Moon-howler :
    It certainly isn’t our job to go it alone.

    If the administration were as invested in defeating ISIS as say, …. climate change, then a formidable international coalition might be possible.

    1. Long run/short run. I expect coalitions are working together as we speak.

      Climate change has been on the agenda a lot longer. Maybe we shouldn’t be leading ISIS removal.

      As I recall from previous war like efforts, trying to coordinate infantry hasn’t worked out so well.

  32. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    It is cheating.

    The party’s candidate should not be chosen by another party. If you don’t intend to vote for the party, then don’t try to choose the candidate.

    That’s like the other team picking their opponent.

    This isn’t paranoia or persecution. I don’t want the GOP doing it to the Democrats either.

    1. Hold on a minute, you want just party people to decide but then you want non party people to vote for your candidate.

      Something’s wrong with this picture. Choosing a leader shouldn’t be just about locking out the rest of the people.

      You want my vote, choose someone normal to run and don’t tell me my opinion isn’t important.

  33. Pat.Herve

    Kelly_3406 :

    Moon-howler :
    It certainly isn’t our job to go it alone.

    If the administration were as invested in defeating ISIS as say, …. climate change, then a formidable international coalition might be possible.

    you know what Kelly – I agree with you. I also think if Congress wanted to do something about ISIS instead of trying to constantly defund Obamacare, they would enact legislation defining what their intent is and fund it.

  34. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    I want party people to decide on who the candidate is because it will be that party’s candidate. Period.

    Independents can vote for whomever they want to. If they don’t vote for a party’s candidate, that is the problem of the party.

    1. If you don’t get votes from outside the party, you won’t get elected. So where does that lead you?

      Virginia politics must drive you crazy. Open primaries are just how we do things around here.

  35. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    If we don’t get votes from outside the party…then we don’t get elected. Either our message resonates or it does not.

    Why would we want people voting to choose our candidates who are not supporting our platform in the first place?

    Doesn’t drive me crazy. We also use conventions. I just think open primaries are stupid.

  36. Kelly_3406

    Pat Herve said: “you know what Kelly – I agree with you. I also think if Congress wanted to do something about ISIS instead of trying to constantly defund Obamacare, they would enact legislation defining what their intent is and fund it.”

    The primary responsibility for planning and execution of National Security Strategy is owned by the Executive Branch. The Administration should formulate a plan and then ask Congress to pass legislation that funds and implements that policy. The responsibility of Congress is to act quickly on such requests (perhaps declare war) and negotiate any revisions needed to achieve a consensus.

    Big policy items like committing troops is not really something that Congress can originate, because it depends so heavily on how the operation is to be conducted. Will the plan call for overwhelming force, or to keep a light footprint? Is the buildup to be rapid, or gradual? Which forces will be used? What types of forces will be supplied by the allies? How will command and control be maintained if the force includes international partners?

    There is no way Congress should act without a basic plan from the commander-in-chief. Congress can do smaller things like pass legislation to provide arms to key allies or to implement sanctions against certain countries. Warfare is so risky that it would be foolhardy for Congress to introduce legislation calling for military action without the explicit leadership of POTUS.

  37. Pat.Herve

    @Kelly_3406
    I agree with you again.

    They CiC did present a plan to Congress nearly a year ago, and it still languishes in Congress. They will not vote on it, will not fund it, will not reject it.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/233747-obamas-aumf-is-largely-meaningless-but-a-good-idea-anyway

    I find it hard to understand how Congress can complain yet not accept, reject or improve on it.

  38. Kelly_3406

    @Pat.Herve

    I do not think that the previous AUMF qualifies as a serious strategy for military force. It did not seem like a wel thought-out course of action. If Congress does anything at all with that, it ought to be a flat-out rejection. My guess is that the D’s in the Senate threatened a filibuster and McConnell and Boehner were too chickensh*t to bring it for a vote anyway.

  39. Pat.Herve

    @Kelly_3406
    I am fine with a flat out rejection. Having no vote is not legislating. Let them filibuster it. Bring it to light. They prefer having political fodder and doing nothing. Oh, look another Obamacare repeal vote going through. It was not even bought up in the non filibuster House.

    They need to Do Something – anything.

    1. Agreed. I am so sick of congress. I refuse to capitalize it any more.

Comments are closed.