It seems that the Donald is opposed to the pledge that voters must sign in the primary and has gone to extraordinary lengths to express himself.

Donald Trump slammed the Republican Party of Virginia via Twitter on Sunday for its plan to require that 2016 primary voters sign a statement confirming they are Republicans.

Trump and others say the requirement could discourage independent and first-time voters from casting primary ballots in Virginia, where primaries are open to all registered voters.

According to some experts, the voter pledge has the potential to hurt Trump, in particular, because his un­or­tho­dox candidacy has attracted voters disenchanted with traditional party politics.

“It begins, Republican Party of Virginia, controlled by the RNC, is working hard to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!” Trump said in one of five tweets sent over several hours on Sunday.

Apparently the more conservative Republicans want party purity.  All voters must sign the pledge.  The moderate Republicans don’t like the pledge.  They feel that it restricts voters.  Some folks just got personal with Trump over it:

The party’s decision also has been questioned by at least one state lawmaker, Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who told The Richmond Times-Dispatch that he worries the requirement will “discourage independent voters from ultimately supporting our nominee.”

But Del. David I. Ramadan (R-Loudoun) said Sunday that he supports the party requirement. He responded to Trump with an angry tweet of his own: “Our party, our rules; your $$s and your bullying do not work in the Commonwealth. MORON!!”

In an interview, Ramadan said: “If Trump considers himself a Republican and his supporters consider themselves Republican, then what’s wrong with signing a pledge saying they’re Republican?”

Ramadan, who is from Lebanon, said he received thousands of tweets from Trump supporters in response to his message. Some, he said, attacked both his position and his heritage, using obscenity and insulting images.

Well, would you expect any thing less from Trump reporters?  I wonder what they actually said to Del.  Ramadan.  Trump and his supporters continue to validate the concept that just because you have money, it doesn’t mean you have class.  On the other hand, Ramadan was a little over the top also.

When did people stop carrying about how they sounded in public?

The entertainment  goes on and on and on.

I actually agree, in principle with Trump on this one.  However, it’s Virginia’s party and they do set their own rules.  I  would either pledge and do to suit myself or I would just not vote.  The whole “pledge” thing is childish, in my not so humble opinion.

52 Thoughts to “Trump and RPV at war”

  1. Starryflights

    Ramadan makes a good point. If Trump wants to represent Virginia republicans, he needs to respect the party’s rules. Trump supporters need to remember that as well if they want to vote in the primaries.

    1. As much as it pains me, I agree. Trump does have to respect the Republican rules in Virginia even though I think the rules are ridiculous. When in Rome and all that.

  2. Steve Thomas

    There is a place for the pledge: Conventions, Caucuses (AKA Firehouse Primary) and Mass Meetings.

    State Primaries are a different case. When the party decides to have a state primary, which is funded by the taxpayers, and Virginia is an open-primary state, the party should not require a pledge or “loyalty oath”. If the party is so concerned about non-Republicans unduly influencing the results, then hold a closed nomination contest.

    In a cycle where both parties will hold a primary on the same day, the chances of “mischief-making” are minimal, and a non-binding pledge won’t change that.

    As much as it pains me, I agree with Trump on this one.

    1. I am sure that was painful. It sort of had the same effect on me. However, I can clearly say I totally agree Steve. That didn’t pain me. I don’t like the pledge requirements out of either party but….its also expected at the caucus and convention level. If the party is paying for it, it makes more sense. While I might not like it, I wouldn’t be in total rebellion. (thinking back to last spring)

      I decided it wasn’t worth fighting city hall last spring, and the way things turned out….it really wasn’t worth it. Trump just has such a hideous way of saying things.

      Let’s just say that while I might have agreed with both Trump and Ramadan in spirit, both need a good spanking about manners.

  3. Wombat

    Well the earth is shifting on its axis – I find myself agreeing with Trump’s opinion on this – the loyalty pledge is a monumentally stupid idea. But in typical Trump style, he can’t even have a position I agree with without managing to be incredibly rude and offensive in stating it. He – and the people who are willing to follow him simply because he makes them feel he is legitimizing their most hateful impulses – scares me to death. Add to this the fact that our own county Chairman has thrown himself in to this cause purely for his own political gain without any thought as to the pain he is causing in our community and the hatred he is enabling – well let’s just say I’m still hoping it’s all a very bad dream from which I will shortly awaken.

    1. I think Corey will end up deeply regretting this decision. You just can’t wash off the Trump stench. A friend of mine suggested that its sort of like supporting the KKK candidate but then saying, but I really don’t dislike blacks and Jews. At some point, the cognitive dissonance should become apparent.

  4. Wolve

    Oh, woe is us!! Boo hoo……

    Come on, folks. Get with the program.

    Millions of Americans are totally fed up with Washington and both political parties. They detest the guts of liberals and RINO’s alike. They have finally found a voice by which each of them can scream out his or her disgust at what is happening in and to their country. Trump didn’t invent that. He recognized it and is answering it, unlike most of the dolts on the Hill, at 1600 Pennsylvania, and on the current campaign trail.

    “Hateful impulses”? Bullcrap. “Stench?” Horse manure. Mass loss of patience is the key to all this. Tired of being ignored except for being the recipients of never ending liberal and RINO lies at election time. Unwilling to continue to be the objects of scorn by the self-nominated “elite.” Sick of being accosted and put down by the political correctness police in the media, on the blogs, and on the campuses, and by the race baiters. Those millions have got one, big, massive middle finger up in the air, and it is aimed at Washington. And every time the uncomprehending targets of their wrath start to call them names and dismiss their anger, Trump’s numbers grow. As do those of that guy named Cruz.

    Vive la Revolution!

    And pass the popcorn.

    1. Sheep. Sheep who only hear loud and crude. Trump is playing them and they don’t even realize it. Many are people who have never been involved in the political process. Trump is a loud bully. That’s pretty much how Hitler came to power…playing on those kinds of people.

      RINOs? I find that funny. So who gets to decide what a REAL Republican is? I know what it used to be and it wasn’t some pig like Trump.

      I expect he really hates working class people (unlike the Kennedys) and is playing these people like a rented mule.

  5. Steve Thomas

    Wolve, while I agree with your analysis of why Trump is so popular, I do believe those angry and frustrated folks on the right have misplaced their hopes. I believe this because his history screams “Trump is no conservative!” His past statements regarding his positions on a whole host of core conservative issues, not to mention his history of donations to liberal candidates, including both Clintons, supports my assertion, and all if his rhetoric can’t erase this.

    1. I would also like to throw in that conservatives wouldn’t trash the Constitution like Trump suggests doing.

      I also think a great deal of the anger in this country is over the same thing it was over 175 years ago–race.

      If you want to really narrow this problem down, listen to Trump. He wants to cast out the Mexicans, not allow Muslims in and if you listen real carefully, there are a few dog whistles about blacks in the form of political correctness statements. He really is appealing to a group of people who want to throw everyone out and just have a white America. He also appeals to those who want to put white males back in the position of dominance and control.

      Then along came Trump. I am not quite sure about why women are involved with Trump other than they might be in denial about the woman thing.

  6. Starryflights

    I agree with Steve. Trump is just playing these folks to win. If he does win the nomination, I think he will soften his positions in order to win the general election. He understands how the game is played and is playing it superbly. His only goal is to win and he will say hat ever he needs to say to win. His supporters can’t see that.

  7. Pat.Herve

    The problem is the Republican party, RPV and the RNC. Period. It is the reason why I and many others are no longer Republicans (not a Democrat either).

    Conservatives think it is their party – it is not. They are just part of it. The Republicans do not see the writing on the wall – they are done. Trump is the best they can do? Cruz – Really! No birther talk this race of someone who was actually born in Canada. Candidates who can think and are reasonable – thrown to the side. I will not sign a pledge.

    But remember – as a good Republican – you WILL support the nominee…..

  8. Steve Thomas

    “Candidates who can think and are reasonable – thrown to the side. I will not sign a pledge.”

    Pat, I am having a bit of trouble following your logic. You blame the party, State and National for your no longer considering yourself a Republican, but then go on to comment that candidates are being “thrown to the side”? Yet, those who are supporting Trump, and to a lesser degree, Cruz and Carson, are accusing the remainder of the field to be “RNC Establishment Candidates”, and Trump himself has accused to RNC of trying to foist another “establishment” candidate on the Republican-leaning voters. So which is it? Can the RNC and RPV be “foisting” Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Paul, etc. on the voters, while simultaneously throwing them aside?

    I’d like to understand where you are coming from. Please help me out here. How can these mutually exclusive conditions coexist at the same point and time, within the RNC and RPV?

    Me? I’ll support the eventual nominee, because any eventual GOP nominee would be better than Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley. If Webb runs independent, I wouldn’t consider him either, as this would be throwing my vote away. I don’t like Trump, because I don’t trust that he’s had some Paulesqe conservative conversion on the road to Damascus.

    1. Steve, you are a party person. Many of us here aren’t party people.

      These anti-establishment people sound like some 19 year old back in the 60s. Truthfully, who would want someone for president who wasn’t establishment? They wouldn’t know what the hell they were doing.

  9. Pat.Herve

    @Steve Thomas
    I will try and explain. I might not be able to. The RNC establishment candidate is not the candidate the Republicans want – it is the RNC machine that wants to pick a candidate. Dole, McCain, Romney – all terrible candidates. Yes, the Poll leaders are not establishment people – but a primary vote has not been cast yet. Lets see the vote results. In many ways, the RNC is letting the media choose the candidates by letting the media choose who is on the main stage.

    Me – I think Kasich or Christie would do well – but I do not think either will get through South Carolina – as the air is being sucked out from under them.

    The US Demographics are changing – the RNC is not. Trump is zeroing on the anger generated against Obama – and doubling down on it. The Democrats realize the changing demographics and are capitalizing on it. Trump is also getting a boost from, ahem, low information voters – you can see it by the reaction to his statements.

    I do not want to see Hilary as President – as I think Congress will become totally blocked from any act – but she will be tough to beat.

    1. I will take Hillary because she is the best either party has offered. Plus, Hillary has the magic bullet.

  10. Pat.Herve

    Another thing – The Republicans will likely lose the Senate this term – so we will be back to a R House an D Senate. Demographics.

  11. Steve Thomas


    I got involved in GOP politics in 2000. Joined my local committee, worked the Presidential, States, Mids, Locals. Somehow I ended up as a unit chairman. When I first joined, I was thought of by the long-time members as a “wild-eyed pistol-waiver conservative”. When I was a unit chair, I was accused by the local Tea Party as being an establishment hack. Funny thing is, I hadn’t changed a my position on a single issue…not one. Other people defined me as thus and such. You could walk a room and one person would say “Steve? Oh he’s much too conservative”…walk 10 feet, and someone else would say “Steve? Oh he’s an establishment party guy”. Why? It is because I subscribe to the William F. Buckley rule: Support the most conservative candidate who can win.

    Rarely…as a matter of fact, never…has my 1st choice in the presidential primary race, won the nomination. For whatever reason, they connected with me, but not enough other primary voters. In 1988, I was backing Kemp, until he withdrew, and endorsed Bush…so I supported Bush. In 1996 I backed Lamar Alexander. In 2000, I backed Orin Hatch. In 2012, Fred Thompson…

    One thing I learned during Presidential primaries…rarely did my views align with what the electorate was looking for. Maybe they are easily swayed by the media. This would explain much. Maybe many just “follow the crowd”. Who knows? One thing I do know, is the voters will vote for who they want, in primaries and generals.

    As far as voters go…I agree, the demographics are changing, but they are always changing. How much does this really impacts elections? The GOP has majority control of most states. Who voted those people in? Demographic change is something this country has dealt with since blacks and women achieved the right to vote. I think “demographics” is like voodoo: Believe in it strongly, and it can affect you. It makes you pander. Don’t, and it is near powerless. The GOP ignores this? Look at the candidates each party is fielding. The Dems? Three Boomers, two men, one woman, all white. Look at the GOP: Boomers and Gen-X, Male and Female, Whites, Hispanics, and Black.

    Is the RNC really “letting the media suck the air out from under…” certain candidates, or are they focusing on a couple candidates who know how to play the media game? As someone who has been part of the “party machine” I can say this with utmost certainty: The RNC, RPV, District Committees, and local units, cannot take sides in a primary. AS someone whose had to give press interviews, I can say rarely are the media “fair”. They weren’t fair to Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, or Romney.

    Now, don’t think I am an RNC guy. I have several issues with the RNC, but they have nothing to do with how they run a presidential convention, which is the first official function of the RNC. My issue is with who they let host the debates, and who they let moderate them. That is where the party is failing. But, I know that the RNC doesn’t choose my nominee. The primary voters do…and to some degree, the big money donors do, by giving individual candidates the resources to reach primary voters. The “RNC Machine” is a myth. I am saying this as someone who’s been on the “inside”. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The great and powerful Oz doesn’t consist of little men pulling levers. It’s the voters in the individual primary states, and the individual campaigns who establish successful state and local organizations that win primaries.

    The same can be said of the RPV, and my knowledge of how this organization operates is more extensive. About the only power the RPV has to select a presidential nominee, is to choose a method of nomination which would favor certain candidates over others. Picking a convention, instead of a primary, would tend to favor the more conservative candidates, but only to a point almost immeasurable. It is the individual campaigns establishing a statewide organization that determines success. Just ask Newt Gingrich, who failed to get on the ballot, because his organization, or lack thereof, failed to collect 250 signatures in each of the congressional districts, required to be on the ballot. Now I’ve publicly disagreed with the “loyalty oath” on this blog, which was decided by the State Central Committee. I guess I could run for a seat on that committee, and change this, but I’m not willing to sacrifice my marriage to do so, and Mrs T would have my head if I did so.

    Pat, it ain’t the RNC, it ain’t the RPV, and it ain’t the media that picks the nominee. It’s the voters. Someone has to pull the lever to record the vote, to decide who gets the delegates, who go to the respective national conventions, who pick the nominee. Now I could get “inside baseball” on delegates, but in my voting lifetime, I cannot recall where the winner of a state primary had that state’s convention delegates vote for a candidate other than the primary winner. It could happen, but it doesn’t.

    If you want to be mad, be mad at your fellow voters. They gave us every single president we’ve ever had. The party organizations facilitate a process. That’s all. It’s your fellow Americans who pick the nominee, and our eventual president. Blaming some “Machine/Star Chamber” or big money donors won’t do. It’s your neighbors who will decide. Remember that.

  12. Wolve

    I say that the “sheep” are on the other side in this affair. They gave Obama virtually a blank check in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2012 to do as he pleased with this Republic.

    The only thing which could have stopped Obama from creating the idiocies we see domestically and internationally would have been a strong Opposition, Unfortunately, the Establishment Republicans aka RINO’s lied their way into power on the Hill under the guise of putting up a fight against Obama but then flipped over with their feet in the air like cowardly dogs, due partly to strategic and tactical stupidity but mostly because their leashes are in the hands of the moneyed/donor class whose trademarks are personal and corporate cupidity……the Republic and the rest of us be damned.

    Ergo, the current popular anger is aimed at two somewhat disparate but equally detested foes. They don’t care at this point how “conservative” Trump may or may not be on certain issues. They want someone to go to Washington to take names and kick serious ass before it is too late for the Republic and its Constitution. They want first to get the national train rerailed and will worry about other things later.

    As for those “sheep” on the liberal side, they handed their lives to an idiot from Chicago who promised them the world and gave them a pile of turds. But, having learned nothing from that experience, they now seem inclined to double up on their folly and swallow the real “stench” around here, which is the Clintons, man and wife. All except for a few who noses are more attuned to smells and are said to be doing the “Bern” or some such.

    Yep. Takes names and kick ass. Worry about the rest of it later. In railroad terminology. Trump supporters see their man as the “Big Hook” who can lift the national locomotive back onto the track and get it running again.

    I am ordering more popcorn.

    1. Tell us how you really feel, Wolve.

      I have said who I will support when the time comes and why.

      I don’t think Obama is an idiot. Apparently you do. Did you think George Bush was an idiot? Should I ask who you don’t think is an idiot?

      The whole idea of Trump taking names and kicking ass is comical. He can blow and bluster all he wants but when the rubber meets the road, he will be as ham strung as every other president. First off, there is the Constitution. Then there is the Congress. Finally, there is the Supreme Court.

      Surely you understand the Obama phenomena and realize that he will bring out voters that no one else can?

      Women aren’t all that enthusiastic about “the first women president” regardless of who that person is or which women are running for it. However, a first black president is another matter.

      I believe I have told the story of my hair stylist’s uncle. He had never voted in his entire life. He never saw the need to. When Obama was running in 2008, the uncle went down and registered to vote. He was way up in his 80s at this time and had several forms of cancer. On election day, he put on his suit and went and voted. He said he never thought he would ever have the opportunity in his lifetime to vote for a black president. It’s something that you and I will never be able to understand.

    2. I am going to theorize that most of the Trumpites are white men. White men seem to be the most insecure. The white men want to do the ass kicking but they can’t. Trump is just saying what they want to hear. Much has changed for me during my life time. When I was growing up, white men ruled. Now they don’t. They don’t like it.

      The divide is far more severe in this country than I thought even ten years ago. There are two totally different expectations for the country. I don’t think it really has to do with economics. I see blue collared workers beating the drums for the rich guys. This is something I don’t understand. It makes no sense to me.

  13. Starryflights

    Make sure you sign your loyalty oath. These are the same people that demand voter id, ban Spanish language voter guides, etc. but will be required to provide the state Republican Party with ther names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers, plus their loyalty. @Wolve Go figure

  14. Wolve


    I posit that Obama will go down as one of the most divisive and destructive chief executives in the history of this country — a man who had a great opportunity to unite us and then blew the whole thing in a wave of lies and deception and nefarious political intentions. That is the idiocy of his tenure.

    I have no idea how all of these political events will play out in the end. But I do suspect that, if those so eagerly grasping at a Trump candidacy as a means for upsetting the Washington establishment applecart are turned away once again by the dirty tricks of the Dems and/or the RINO’s, their anger will fester and fester until it erupts in a way that could make the political foundations of the country shake and shudder. Play the usual political games with this if you like, but I posit that these are no ordinary times and that that is no ordinary anger out there.

    And I have seen plenty of women in the Trump campaign event audiences.

    1. Let’s face it, those women could be strategically placed so that you see them, along with the blacks and Latinos.

  15. Wolve


    Sorry, pal. I have never had an affiliation with a political party and have never, ever voted in a primary election of any kind. My personal standards are such that, if I do not volunteer to be part of an organization, I consider myself as having no business voting in that organization’s internal election processes. Therefore, I shall sit back with the popcorn and watch and comment until all the final entrants in this national joust are identified and present themselves for my possible approval.

  16. Pat.Herve

    @Steve Thomas
    Steve – you have a lot in that response. But I still think the machine controls much of what happens – but not always – Reagan was not supposed to be the nominee and neither was Clinton.

    What about the primary process – where states are rewarded or penalized with delegates if they move their primary dates from when the parties want the state to have a primary? A few candidates will drop out after Iowa – why is Iowa first – they do not really represent other states interests? The parties can manipulate how things turn out.

  17. Cargosquid

    Heh….I don’t think Obama was supposed to be the candidate originally either.

  18. Steve Thomas


    If a national party penalizes a state party by taking delegates, how does this like having the thumb on the scales for a particular candidate?

    If my recollection is correct, Iowa is the first nomination contest, because of its Caucus/Convention procedure. This was a result of an edict issued by the DNC, after their nutty 1968 convention, where the rules issued to the state parties, forced Iowa to move it’s first-step (Caucus) into January, so as all of the other steps (county and state conventions) would fit into the timeline. NH is actually the first primary. Both states have written it into their state laws, that they will be “1st”. If another state tries to leap-frog them, by law, they must move the date. This is a more matter of state voting laws, not the doing of the RNC or DNC.

    The National parties can exert some influence, as the DNC is doing with their debate schedule, but picking a nominee in a smoke-filled room isn’t a power the RNC has. The state parties have too big of a role, for this to happen. Also, there’s the state’s election laws.

  19. Starryflights

    Trump’s objections to Va. voter pledge are stirring divisions in state GOP

    RICHMOND — With a few tweets, Donald Trump has managed to reignite infighting within the Virginia GOP, sending party leaders scrambling to defend a plan that requires voters to sign a pledge affirming they are Republicans.

    The front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination and the state party are at odds over a nine-word statement that will be on the 2016 GOP primary ballot and has long divided Republicans in Virginia, where voters do not register by party. The statement reads, “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”

    Supporters of the pledge, which they call a “statement of affirmation,” say it is designed to prevent Democrats and wishy-washy Republicans from choosing the party’s nominee. Opponents say the party has no place excluding voters from a ­taxpayer-funded process and should focus instead on broadening their base.

    The differing opinions have kept the pledge off the ballot since 2000.

    But party leaders decided to reinstate it for the March primary, even as Republicans are trying to recover from other internal squabbles and the loss of all statewide offices in recent elections.

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks with attendees at a rally in front of the USS Wisconsin on Oct. 31 in Norfolk. (Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)
    At a September meeting, 44 of 74 members of the party’s State Central Committee decided to have voters sign the pledge, according to meeting minutes. The state Board of Elections made it official this month.

    All was relatively quiet until Sunday when Trump launched a five-tweet screed against the Virginia party, saying it “is working hard to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters.” He called the pledge a “suicidal move” and referred to Republican losses in elections for statewide offices in Virginia.

    Corey A. Stewart, Trump’s Virginia campaign chairman and the chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, escalated the attack a few days later.

    “It’s clearly an attempt to scare off and confuse new Republican voters,” Stewart said in an interview.

    “Trump is exciting a lot of people, and a lot of people are interested in participating in the Republican Party,” Stewart said. “And that’s a threat to establishment Republicans.”

    He went on to blame the “very top echelons” of the Republican National Committee for the Virginia pledge.

    RNC rules say that only Republicans should be allowed to vote in the party’s primaries but leave it up to state parties to decide how to accomplish that.

    In response to Trump’s criticism, the executive director of the Virginia GOP sent activists a list of talking points intended to refute allegations that the pledge targets voters who are most likely to support Trump’s un­or­tho­dox campaign.

    Ironically, it was the hard-core conservatives who wanted the pledge. Now their pledge is biting them in their collective behinds!

  20. Wolve

    Dang it all! I must have fallen fast asleep over the Christmas holidays. They tell me the State Department announced that one of the 2015 foreign policy accomplishments of the Obama administration was to bring peace and security to Syria.

    Somehow I clean missed all of that.

    Cargo — Did you see it? Is there any video? How did they do it? Man, I must be getting too old to keep up……

  21. Wolve

    You want to see why there are Americans out there who are angry as hell at everybody and everything in or associated with Washington? Take a gander at this piece on betrayal:


  22. Steve Thomas

    Wolve :
    Link in #31 is wrong. Try this one:

    A long read, but informative…and damning.

  23. Pat.Herve

    Why the outrage – this has been going on for years – with no complaints from anybody except for the unions.

    Not just low skilled jobs, but high skilled jobs too –

    California Edison –

    Toys R US –

    Disney, yes, that Disney –

    But alas, Congress does not feel that our immigration or tax system need to be reformed in any manner. Our corporations which do not have any country allegiance can foreign source our jobs, avoid paying taxes and move headquarters. They can creatively move IP (Intellectual Property) to other nations to rob the US of taxes and move profits (falsely moving profits) overseas – yet Congress is too busy voting on another repeal Obamacare vote to care. Way too much political posturing and conniving and not enough legislating.

  24. Starryflights

    Wolve :
    Dang it all! I must have fallen fast asleep over the Christmas holidays. They tell me the State Department announced that one of the 2015 foreign policy accomplishments of the Obama administration was to bring peace and security to Syria.
    Somehow I clean missed all of that.
    Cargo — Did you see it? Is there any video? How did they do it? Man, I must be getting too old to keep up……

    The State Department made no such announcement

  25. Wolve

    Starryflights :

    Wolve :
    Dang it all! I must have fallen fast asleep over the Christmas holidays. They tell me the State Department announced that one of the 2015 foreign policy accomplishments of the Obama administration was to bring peace and security to Syria.
    Somehow I clean missed all of that.
    Cargo — Did you see it? Is there any video? How did they do it? Man, I must be getting too old to keep up……

    The State Department made no such announcement

    Ah, Starry must have seen Kirby on MSNBC trying to walk it back. That seems to be the usual Step 2 for State announcements under this administration. Even “Politico” questioned Kirby on that one.

  26. Wolve

    Steve Thomas :

    Wolve :
    Link in #31 is wrong. Try this one:

    A long read, but informative…and damning.

    Damning also is the 181-page regulation change proposal posted by the administration on 31 December for comment. Tens of thousands of work permits (probably 100,000 and up) and likely green cards for foreign students on student visas graduating from US universities and colleges. We are going to throw those kids into competition with American students already suffering under heavy student loan debt and finding it hard to get good jobs in their fields. But, to hell with our own kids and with the “brain drain” on developing countries.

    Also tucked in there is a proposal to give work permits to 15 categories of illegal immigrants who are currently appealing court decisions ordering them to be deported. And I understand that DHS is putting out a contract proposal for the printing of a very big order of green cards.

    Pat.Herve is right. I personally have little confidence that Paul Ryan and his pals on the Hill will do anything to block or undo any of this. American workers are being shafted at every turn. I predict that 2016 is going to be angrier than 2015.

  27. Pat.Herve

    and others, like Ted Cruz – want to increase the H1-B caps….year after year after year. So, what difference does it make.

    The US encourages corporations to move our jobs overseas, outsource our jobs to foreigners and screw the average American. And Congress encourages it more by collecting donations and giving breaks to corporations for doing it.

  28. Pat.Herve

    Well, Congress will be back in session this coming week- and what is on their calendar? Yes, a vote to repeal Obamacare (where is the replace?) and a Benghazi hearing. Who would expect anything else from this Congress.

    Where are the hearings and votes on immigration, tax reform, social security fix, AUMF, etc. No, Nada, Nothing, Crickets.

    I laugh at all the GOP Presidential Candidates who are currently in Congress calling the conflict with ISIS a war, yet fail to introduce legislation declaring War against ISIS. Makes no sense to me. Yes, I think we need to declare war against ISIS and fund it – and tax the people of this country to pay for it – and get the other countries in the Middle East to fund it also and participate.

    1. Surely there is an anti abortion bill and a defund planned parenthood bill in there somewhere?

  29. Wolve

    I think the February 2015 proposal by POTUS for an ISIS AUMF has been hung up on the specifics outlined therein. It seems to be an argument over whether the current proposal can be passed as POTUS has requested without locking his 2017 successor into those same specifics.

    In early November, a bipartisan 35-member letter was sent to Speaker Ryan urging him to schedule a vote on the AUMF. It didn’t move the process as desired, so we are still stuck. However, the omnibus bill did include $1.1 trillion for pursuing the war against ISIS. There are opinions out there that this passage of funds is a de facto AUMF, at least through 30 September 2016. Some Republican reps disagree with that conclusion, saying the two are still separate, even though they voted for the omnibus war funding.

    Who the heck knows? No ISIS AUMF on the books but POTUS has the money to fight the war. Ever since 1945, war seems to have gotten very confusing in this country as to authorization and legality. Maybe we should go back to calling everything “police actions” like Korea.

    1. I think that if Congress actually had to pay for a war and declare war, perhaps we would be smarter about them.

  30. Wolve

    Let me rephrase part of #41: “…the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill did include funding for pursuing the war against ISIS…”

  31. Pat.Herve

    The AUMF does not lock the next POTUS into specifics – they can unravel the AUMF – what Congress was not happy about was that the AUMF was for a three year period – and then Congress NEEDS to do something – extend it or not. Not an open ended thing that Congress can complain about but do nothing about. I think every AUMF should have an end date – it is the legislation that is the end date, not the response – i.e., Congress needs to act and extend it – enough of this throwing rocks and pointing fingers without doing anything but political posturing.

    Here is the AUMF – what possibly is in their that ties anyones hands…..

    What war against ISIS is funded – did Congress do a Christmas vote on War against ISIS? Congress is failing us and the US.

  32. Wolve

    Pat —- I do think there are some genuine disagreements on both sides and even within the parties with regard to any specifics contained in an ISIS AUMF. One basic argument, apparently supported by the White House itself, is that war against ISIS is covered by the Congressional resolution passed after 9/11. It looks to me like the White House would have been happy to continue to use that resolution but that they submitted an AUMF proposal to meet a December 2014 demand from Speaker John Boehner. There also appear to be some Congressional “hawks” who believe the wide-ranging 9/11 resolution is better in this case because an AUMF might limit the actions of the C-in-C. (Others counter that ISIS didn’t even exist in when the 9/11 resolution was passed.)

    Other arguments seem to concern the geographical limits of an AUMF and the possible use of American combat troops on the ground. Will this be a war limited to just Iraq and Syria or will it be spread further — e.g. ISIS in Libya, ISIS now trying to fill a void in Yemen, and ISIS surfacing now in Afghanistan? Shall we adhere to the POTUS view stated in the proposed AUMF that we limit ourselves to supporting the boots of other soldiers on the ground or should we leave open the possibility of using our own ground combat troops? If the POTUS recommendation is accepted, would that lock in a successor who might deem it necessary to use our own combat troops? There are some heavy hitters in the Senate who have always been pushing vocally for our own combat troops; and I’ve seen some opinion that this may mean any movement of the AUMF will come in the Senate vice the House — the same Senate which has been preoccupied so long with the still simmering Iran nukes deal.

    From what I’ve seen, the omnibus bill in December did give the White House the funding needed to keep up their actions against ISIS under the 9/11 resolution, which they seem to believe covers them quite well legally.

  33. Pat.Herve

    Congress does not want to have a vote on the AUMF – just like they do not want to vote on a budget, immigration, tax reform or anything else other than repeal Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. They do not want to be on the record for anything.

    The proposed AUMF does not tie the hands of the next C-in-C – Congress can vote on another AUMF if they had the will to do their jobs. They want military action against ISIS but fail to vote on it. Event the funding hidden in the current bill is kludgy. They are failing us.

  34. Wolve

    Pat — I think it is more complicated than that and that it hinges most of all on the use of our own boots on the ground — which I think is why some Congress members are pushing the view that the 9/11 resolution is sufficient for our purposes. That resolution seems to leave open the possibility of using our own boots if it comes to that. On the other hand, if you pass an AUMF which restricts us to air and other specialized support for somebody else’s boots on the ground, we would have to debate and pass a new or amended AUMF, which, given the differing feelings in this country after the costly ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, might create a real public backlash on the part of many. I, for example, am rather conflicted right now over another use of our boots on the ground. I am pretty sure that we would have a very strong and animated national discussion on such a proposed change,

    I am not in the room, but I suspect that there are some sincere differences of opinion and subsequent behind-the-scenes maneuvering on this thing, In the meantime, POTUS gets to use the funds made available to pursue his own preferred strategy and tactics…..although sending Special Forces into the fray in Iraq and Syria does raise questions about the definition of boots on the ground.

    Anyway, as I said, I am not in that room. Just an opinion. Meanwhile, I am watching for one thing what happens in Iraq after the retaking of Ramadi by Iraqi ground troops with coalition air support and especially whether we see a good follow-up against Mosul. Retaking Mosul might begin to change some minds on the need for US boots on the ground.

  35. Cargosquid

    I want zero boots on the ground under this CINC.
    He has no clue what he is doing and is willing to waste lives for no objective other than to “send a message.

    He has completely and utterly gone potato on Afghanistan, not willing to do anything but run out the clock. He’s getting people killed for nothing. We are not fighting the Taliban. We are not fighting Al Qaeda. And we are not withdrawing, as he promised. Even his surrenders are failures.

    He has no idea what he wants to do in Iraq. He doesn’t want to fight them because they are the only “viable” force against Assad. And he drew that “red line” and talked big about how bad Assad is.

    He has to make a show of it. He’s getting people killed because he’s a narcissitic failure with no idea what he wants to do besides play golf.

    Too bad Valerie Jarrett won’t leave him there. The country would be safer.

  36. Cargosquid

    I want zero boots on the ground under this CINC.
    He has no clue what he is doing and is willing to waste lives for no objective other than to “send a message.

    He has completely and utterly gone potato on Afghanistan, not willing to do anything but run out the clock. He’s getting people killed for nothing. We are not fighting the Taliban. We are not fighting Al Qaeda. And we are not withdrawing, as he promised. Even his surrenders are failures.

    He has no idea what he wants to do in Iraq. He doesn’t want to fight them because they are the only “viable” force against Assad. And he drew that “red line” and talked big about how bad Assad is.

    He has to make a show of it. He’s getting people killed because he’s a narcissistic failure with no idea what he wants to do besides play golf.

    Too bad Valerie Jarrett won’t leave him there. The country would be safer.

    1. We aren’t fighting the Taliban? Interesting. Getting people killed? I actually think your comments about the president are unacceptable.

  37. Pat.Herve

    <iOn the other hand, if you pass an AUMF which restricts us to air and other specialized support for somebody else’s boots on the ground, we would have to debate and pass a new or amended AUMF,

    You make it sound like this is concrete – this is how the system was set up in our Constitution – Congress gets to debate the hard questions. In our world of today, no one wants to debate issues and Congress does not want to vote on issues – they just want to throw stones. Congress needs to step up the game and actually do their duty. They will not even bring the AUMF up for a vote as they want the political posturing of throwing stones without actually taking a vote to see where they really stand. I find it sickening that they shirk their duty. Declare war and fund it. They can create their own AUMF and authorize any response – and if they do, then they can throw stones at the response if they disagree with it. Vote. Oh, look a repeal Obamacare care vote, so they know the process. #CongressFail.

  38. Wolve


    I don’t see POTUS complaining about it. The demand for an AUMF came from Boehner, not him. In the meantime, POTUS has his money and a resolution which allows him to call the strategical and tactical shots as he wants. His “war” plan against ISIS is ongoing as we speak. As for the political slams, he ought to be used to that by now. And, as he said today, he’s not on the ballot. Personally, I don’t think he wants an AUMF authorizing our own boots on the ground.

Comments are closed.