Your Absolute Must Read of the Night [Original title]

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Yes, Bigun, why don't you prove a negative.  Rather than A-lert itemizing and disputing things he believes Cruz lies about, the claims of what he will do in office, and which have been widely publicized in his speeches, the media, and his web site, A-Lert goes the D.U. troll rout, and asks you to spend YOUR time looking up all that information already available to him and print "how Cruz will save the Republic" (inference).   Hint:  You can't prove a negative.

Progressives love trolling like this.  They can ask you to prove negatives, have you spinning in circles, while all they do is ask "factual based questions".   (Not claiming that A-lert is a progressive; only that he follows the Alinsky playbook.)

He knows why we don't trust Trump, won't support him, and never will.  He knows why we feel Cruz is more likely to keep his word, and carry through on his conservative agenda.    He doesn't care.  It's just progressive style agitprop.

Here's a few questions for the Trump supporter: 

Premise:  The GOP divided will not beat Hillary Clinton in November 2016, even if Hillary is wearing an orange jumpsuit on election day.

Question(s): If it is essential that the GOP be united, why would Donald Trump personally insult nearly every GOP  Presidential candidate, and specifically, the more conservative candidates, knowing full well that such would leave the GOP a divided party?  Why would Donald chose to "burn it all down", knowing full well, that as much as 50% of the GOP will walk away regardless of who wins the nomination, because of Trumps insults and his poisoning the well of GOP voters who might be otherwise disposed to support a GOP conservative nominee?

Who benefits?  (crib sheet answer: Hillary)

Why would a Billionaire, erstwhile "reformer", long time FOB (friend of Bill, and Hillary), and life long progressive supporter (along with mostly progressive Republicans) work to divide the GOP?

Final (extra credit):  Do you remember who Ross Perot was?  Do you recall the result of the 1992 election?  Can you list the similarities between Perot and Trump, as Presidential candidates?

Personal: As a Trump supporter, why does none of Trump's antics, his insults, his misrepresentations, but most of all, his efforts to divide the GOP, not bother you?

Great post worth reading again.

[OldSaltUSN]

Ted Cruz isn't going to win the Republican nomination. He's not popular with his peers or the general public. Get used to the fact.

What fact?!

• Donald has won most of his delegates when Cruz was competing against him in a divided field.  That is a fact.
  
• At least a third of the votes Donald has accredited to him, when the media and Trump supporters claim Trump has "millions more votes" than Ted Cruz, were not actually cast for Donald Trump, but rather for his opponents.    Donald won them (fairly) in "winner take all" states, and many with substantial non-GOP "cross over"voters, but the voters accredited to him actually voted 65% (e.g. Florida) for another candidate .  That also, is a fact.  Conjecture: Most of those non-GOP cross-over votes won't be with him in November, should Trump win the GOP nomination.
• True, Cruz is not popular with many, particularly in the GOP-E (e.g. GOP Senate).  Cruz supporters argue that might be because Cruz stood his ground on multiple conservative issues, ALONE IN THE SENATE, when no others stood beside him or supported his conservative positions, and particularly other "outsiders' such as Donald Trump.   However:
• If it is true that Cruz's unpopularity with voters makes it impossible for him to win the nomination or general election, admittedly ranked at only 29.9 % approval, and a WHOPPING 54.9% disapproval rating (RCP),  base on your "facts" and logic, how can a candidate with a LOWER POPULARITY RATING (28.4%) and HIGHER UNPOPULARITY RATING (65.4%) best Cruz?  Based on that "fact", GOP voters like Trump a whole lot less than Cruz.
• The only "fact" in your post that we need to get used to, is that A-Lert will twist the facts however it suites him to help Trump win, because in A-Lert's mind, in the words of one infamous philosopher, "the ends, indeed, justify the means."

Hey, you and THE DONALD go with that, right to the convention and even the general election, should fate bless THE DONALD.   But if you look back, and see a whole lot fewer than "millions of GOP voters" following, don't blame the voters.  We've been telling the world, by about 65% to 35%, that WE DON'T TRUST TRUMP, won't support him, and won't vote for him.  Trump has been living on borrowed time via a borrowed media.  He is not a majority GOP candidate, and he will never realize majority support within the rank and file of the GOP.  That, brother, is a fact that you can take to the bank.

Trump has divided the GOP, and in particular, GOP conservatives who were Trump's first target in disparaging Teds "evangelical" credentials (e.g "Lyin Ted", "Lyin Ted", "my little cracker..."., etc.).  He owns the result, "Hillary in the White House", regardless of how events play out.

[OldSaltUSN]

And it’s also why #NeverTrump folks hold in such contempt most Trump voters – in particular those who occupy positions of public trust: it’s because, in the case of Trump, it’s really obvious.

This is the money quote. A demagogue has no power without a willing, gullible following.  For some reason, there seems to be a fear on the part of Republican politicians to condemn Trump in public, to scorn his ideas and, indeed, the man himself.  (One exception is Ben Sasse of Nebraska).  Why are they afraid? Because Trump is a vengeful, vindictive human being who has a practice of attempting to destroy anyone who stands in his way.  He has essentially cowed these people and has been cowing them for months. 

I have to laugh when I read comparisons to Mitt Romney.  For all his flaws, Romney is an honorable decent person.  Trump is not.

Unfortunately, those who are in his camp are now too fully invested to back away.  They would lose massive face if they turned against him now.  And, in fact, if you ask them, they rarely cite any of his policies for the reason to support him.  No, they follow him because he's supposedly this "tough guy" who will knock down anything in his way (including Constitutional protections). 

It's about him.  Well, it's about him with me too.  I can't vote for a vulgar, dishonest, dishonorable human being for President.  And I won't.

 

[OldSaltUSN]

Voting against isn't the  same as accomplishing something. Trump has accomplished pissing off "the establishment" even more.

Right!  So, name the things that Trump has done, before he announced his candidacy and other than this election cycle, that Trump has done that pissed off "the establishment"?  Tell us all the ways that Trump has "pissed off the establishment" over the last 5 years, 10 years, heck, you can go all the way back to his cradle that'll help out.

Talking tough at a rally and berating others as "ugly" or "Lyin" or "Losers", isn't accomplishing something, other than terminally dividing the GOP to throw the election to long time friends Hillary and Bill.

What has Trump ever said or done in his life that would lead one to conclude that he will follow through on any of his commitments??  We can quote his conflicting statements, which would lead to a contrary conclusion.

[A-Lert]

Buchanan and Ron Paul isolationism.   Et tu, Donald?    

Someone else will always pay in blood for the wars isolationists won't fight, and usually in buckets and tanker's sized amounts.
Peace through strength keeps America free and kills fewer of our kids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

Here are a few more you might find interesting.

Mark "Oz" Geist, member of the security team which responded to the 2012 Benghazi attack, co-author of 13 Hours[331]

John "TIG" Tiegen, member of the security team which responded to the 2012 Benghazi attack, co-author of 13 Hours[335]

Stephan Miller, former adviser to Sen. Jeff Sessions, senior adviser to the Trump campaign[333]

Michael Scheuer, political blogger, author and former Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station


    Pat Buchanan, White House Communications Director (1985–1987), senior advisor to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, author, and columnist[27]

    Jeffrey Lord, White House associate political director for the Reagan administration (1987–1988) and political commentator[28]

    Joseph E. Schmitz, Inspector General of the Department of Defense (2002–2005), former executive with Blackwater Worldwide, and member of the foreign policy advising committee for the Trump campaign.[29]



    Michael T. Flynn, retired U.S. Lieutenant General, director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (2012–2014), commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign[30]

    Gary L. Harrell, retired as a Major General, former Delta Force commander, and adviser to the Trump campaign[31][32]

    Charles R. Kubic, retired Rear Admiral, former Commander of the 1st Naval Construction Division and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Engineer Group, president of engineering firm ECC International, LLC, and adviser to the Trump campaign[31][33]

    Bert Mizusawa, U.S. Army Major General, former Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Joint Chiefs of Staff, former commander of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Afghanistan (CJIATF-A), and adviser to the Trump campaign[31][34]

    Robert C. Oaks, retired U.S. Air Force General, commander of Air Training Command and United States Air Forces in Europe (1986–1990), former Senior Vice President of U.S. Airways, and general authority of Mormon Church[35][36]

    Paul E. Vallely, retired U.S. Army Major General, 351st Civil Affairs Commander (1982–1986), former Deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command, co-author of Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror, and Military Committee Chairman for the Center for Security Policy[37][38][39]

[A-Lert]

"factual refutation" hasn't been a strength of many Trump supporters I've run into;  Agitprop and ad hominem  have been about par for the course.  However, you are still posting your articles and remarks, so I guess that there's still hope for dialogue.

I suspect we'll have some fun here, you and me.  If fun hasn't been "beaten to death already".

Ron Paul and Ted Cruz have more in common than just being Texas politicians. They have almost identical records of "accomplishment". I don't believe either one ever got a law or piece of legislation rescinded.  Neither was able to persuade, lead or cajole their peers into action.

[A-Lert]

Yes, Bigun, why don't you prove a negative.  Rather than A-lert itemizing and disputing things he believes Cruz lies about, the claims of what he will do in office, and which have been widely publicized in his speeches, the media, and his web site, A-Lert goes the D.U. troll rout, and asks you to spend YOUR time looking up all that information already available to him and print "how Cruz will save the Republic" (inference).   Hint:  You can't prove a negative.

Progressives love trolling like this.  They can ask you to prove negatives, have you spinning in circles, while all they do is ask "factual based questions".   (Not claiming that A-lert is a progressive; only that he follows the Alinsky playbook.)

He knows why we don't trust Trump, won't support him, and never will.  He knows why we feel Cruz is more likely to keep his word, and carry through on his conservative agenda.    He doesn't care.  It's just progressive style agitprop.

Here's a few questions for the Trump supporter: 

Premise:  The GOP divided will not beat Hillary Clinton in November 2016, even if Hillary is wearing an orange jumpsuit on election day.

Question(s): If it is essential that the GOP be united, why would Donald Trump personally insult nearly every GOP  Presidential candidate, and specifically, the more conservative candidates, knowing full well that such would leave the GOP a divided party?  Why would Donald chose to "burn it all down", knowing full well, that as much as 50% of the GOP will walk away regardless of who wins the nomination, because of Trumps insults and his poisoning the well of GOP voters who might be otherwise disposed to support a GOP conservative nominee?

Who benefits?  (crib sheet answer: Hillary)

Why would a Billionaire, erstwhile "reformer", long time FOB (friend of Bill, and Hillary), and life long progressive supporter (along with mostly progressive Republicans) work to divide the GOP?

Final (extra credit):  Do you remember who Ross Perot was?  Do you recall the result of the 1992 election?  Can you list the similarities between Perot and Trump, as Presidential candidates?

Personal: As a Trump supporter, why does none of Trump's antics, his insults, his misrepresentations, but most of all, his efforts to divide the GOP, not bother you?

Why do you have to go the insult route?

What's with the "long time friend of Bill and Hillary" BS?

Trump did what was necessary. He pared the field down quickly and basically turned the primary into a 2 man race which he is going to win shortly. For a non politician, his antics were surprisingly effective. The Trump supporters have repeatedly stated they would support the Republican nominee. The anti-Trumps/never trumps are the dividers.

Christie, Carson, Rubio and Walker have all stated they will support the nominee if it is Trump.

[NavyCanDo]

Ron Paul and Ted Cruz have more in common than just being Texas politicians. They have almost identical records of "accomplishment". I don't believe either one ever got a law or piece of legislation rescinded.  Neither was able to persuade, lead or cajole their peers into action.

So you would rather have your elected representative go along to get along, rather than represent the constituents who put them into office.  Be part of the establishment. Not being from Texas, I didn't witness the election platforms of Cruz and Paul, but I'm pretty sure they ran on a "Im going to Washington to cut the size of government, and fight the establishment, not join  them.   And sponsering new laws that get passed is not always a badge of courage. I would say it can be too often the opposite, because deals must be struck, often shady deals just to get them to the floor to vote on.


Forget what your 8th grade Civics teacher told you about how Wasington works. It is dirty and ruthless, like a saugage factory, it may be best you do not take the inside tour.  I have read what it takes to get laws to the floor for a vote, the shady deals struch with peers and the other party. It is no wonder so many good people we elect come are not the same after only a few years. Cruz and both Paul's were not one of these. They didn't give in and that bothers you.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Ted Cruz isn't going to win the Republican nomination. He's not popular with his peers or the general public. Get used to the fact.

Methinks you're right:

Gallup:  Presidential Election 2016: Key Indicators  (Favorability)

Among Republicans/Republican-leaning independents

Apr 22-28, 2016
Cruz: 41 % Fav.    Trump: 57 % Fav. 

Apr 21-27, 2016
Cruz: 42 % Fav.     Trump: 57 % Fav.

Apr 20-26, 2016
Cruz: 44 % Fav.    Trump: 57 % Fav.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles#pcf-fave

[sinkspur]

Why do you have to go the insult route?

What's with the "long time friend of Bill and Hillary" BS?

Trump did what was necessary. He pared the field down quickly and basically turned the primary into a 2 man race which he is going to win shortly. For a non politician, his antics were surprisingly effective. The Trump supporters have repeatedly stated they would support the Republican nominee. The anti-Trumps/never trumps are the dividers.

Christie, Carson, Rubio and Walker have all stated they will support the nominee if it is Trump.

And those of us who have told you that we would never support Trump will do what is necessary for us.  I don't give a damn if I'm the only one who's #NeverTrump.  I will always be Never Trump.

If Donald's going to "crush" Hillary as I read here, you don't need us anyway.

[Lando Lincoln]

Salt - welcome to the forum.

[Rivergirl]

So nice to know that all the bribes DT paid to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, billandhill's 'foundation' bill deBlasio, and assorted other America haters, were 'necessary'. 
Nice see that the tRumpers are here lying in wait for someone to dare to disagree with their hero.  The name calling and slashing and burning is just so well learned.
Guess calling Dr. Carson a child molester was necessary as well. After all, Carson was leading in the Iowa polls at the time and he just had to be destroyed.  It was 'necessary'.

[ArneFufkin]

Redstate anti-Trump rants won't change many minds.

Intellectually lazy dismissal of the source rather than a cogent refutation of the content.   

+1

Keep posting!

[HonestJohn]

Very good article.

[Bigun]

And those of us who have told you that we would never support Trump will do what is necessary for us.  I don't give a damn if I'm the only one who's #NeverTrump.  I will always be Never Trump.

If Donald's going to "crush" Hillary as I read here, you don't need us anyway.

You won't be the only one I'll assure you!

[HonestJohn]

It’s his personality traits – traits that are visible at a first, lazy glance – that make us recoil in horror at the idea of Donald Trump actually occupying the office of the Presidency. It’s his laziness when it comes to learning about the details of the job he wants to hold. It’s his pathological insecurity and vanity (which are two sides of the same coin) which would make him a dangerously erratic commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It’s his repeated egregious failures in character assessment which would make him a terrible person to put in charge of staffing the executive department. It’s his demonstrated willingness to abuse power for the sake of his own petty vengeances – which is horrifying to contemplate for someone who desires the office of the Presidency.

Absolutely, and amen.

But it is equally evident that none of this matters to his supporters.

The essential nature of Mr. Trump's character, as clearly revealed over time and through countless examples, is of no consequence to those who promote him.

The man is a horror show of human character flaws - and they love him for it.

Having read what his supporters say, it's very clear that a majority of his support is *because* of his "demonstrated willingness to abuse power for the sake of his own petty vengeances".

How many times have we read that it's time for our own Obama to get revenge for the last eight years?  Or that it's time to destroy the GOP?  Or that America needs to suffer for twice electing Obama?

That *IS* Trump.

[Sanguine]

This is the  best summation of the REAL TRUMP I have read yet.  He his on every one of my thoughts.  I was for Trump in the beginning (shame on me, I know), BUT it only took me about 1 month to realize and see the man for who he really is.

I am so ashamed that I ever was taken in, but I wanted to win, I knew Cruz was the BETTER man, but is succumbed to the group think for a spell.  I took a look at his rallies all those people following this hypnotist saying the same thing over and over to the CHEERs and hoorays of the people. That is what jarred the senses back into me, for I searched the internet to find the same type of following as Hitler had in 1938-39, the crowd was the same and Hitler has the same loud screaming rhetoric as Trump has, then remembered the same type of crowds adoring Obama, THAT IS VERY SCARY.  All the same as those that chose Barabbas, go along with the  group think mentality, no longer have a mind of their own, don't dare to think different.

Actually it is known that Trump did keep a book on Hitler by his bedside, so apparently he studied the speech patterns of Hitler and how he stirred up emotions of hate........that hate is what we now see with all the Trump supporters.  They hate because Trump told them to, so here is how they worship......
    

It is time for Trump to drop out for the good of the country, as 60% of Voter DO Not want him, that is a fact and will not change, and most likely 1/4 of his 40% supporters will cross back and vote Hillary.

Annieokie, don't apologize for liking Trump at first.  I will still say that he did us a great service by saying things that everyone else was either afraid of saying, or wasn't being heard when they said it.  Now, looking back we can say he didn't mean it or fully understand what he was advocating, but the fact remains that he broke the politically-correct-speech-only mold.

[Bill Cipher]

"Never" means never.

#NeverTrump

[Sanguine]

Ted Cruz represents the best opportunity we have had to install a genuine originalist into the presidency since Reagan, and although i recognize the odds are long, I will stay loyal to his cause until the bitter end.  It is a crying shame that so many otherwise thoughtful, intelligent conservatives -- people I respect deeply -- have decided to throw this intelligent, decent and honorable man overboard.  Nonetheless, even if he fails this year, Cruz is laying the foundation for four years from now, just as Reagan did in 1976.

The country just has not quite sunk deep enough into the socialist abyss.  But four years of Hillary Clinton should be enough for Cruz to resurrect himself.  He has the one thing going for him that no other candidate in the race has, and that is the truth.  Long after the short-term effects of the Trump Kool-Aid have worn off, and Trump goes the way of Ross Perot, the fundamental truth that formed the basis of the thinking of Locke and Jefferson and Coolidge will still be there. 

Because people will be yearning to be free, not governed by a thug.

 

[A-Lert]

So you would rather have your elected representative go along to get along, rather than represent the constituents who put them into office.  Be part of the establishment. Not being from Texas, I didn't witness the election platforms of Cruz and Paul, but I'm pretty sure they ran on a "Im going to Washington to cut the size of government, and fight the establishment, not join  them.   And sponsering new laws that get passed is not always a badge of courage. I would say it can be too often the opposite, because deals must be struck, often shady deals just to get them to the floor to vote on.


Forget what your 8th grade Civics teacher told you about how Wasington works. It is dirty and ruthless, like a saugage factory, it may be best you do not take the inside tour.  I have read what it takes to get laws to the floor for a vote, the shady deals struch with peers and the other party. It is no wonder so many good people we elect come are not the same after only a few years. Cruz and both Paul's were not one of these. They didn't give in and that bothers you.

No, I want a leader, a motivator, an energetic persuader.  What the hell good does it do to stomp your feet and say no if you can't get others to say no with you??????

I know how legislators work. You build coalitions, you persuade and make deals, something Trump accels at doing.

[austingirl]

There have been several psychiatrists that have determined that Trump suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder.  That disorder is evident in the way he projects himself in his speeches and everyday behavior.  He is a narcissist to the extent the he poses a real danger to this country.  To recap from the article:

..."the problem is that (Trump) he is manifestly unfit for the office as a human being...

It’s his personality traits – traits that are visible at a first, lazy glance – that make us recoil in horror at the idea of Donald Trump actually occupying the office of the Presidency. It’s his laziness when it comes to learning about the details of the job he wants to hold. It’s his pathological insecurity and vanity (which are two sides of the same coin) which would make him a dangerously erratic commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It’s his repeated egregious failures in character assessment which would make him a terrible person to put in charge of staffing the executive department. It’s his demonstrated willingness to abuse power for the sake of his own petty vengeances – which is horrifying to contemplate for someone who desires the office of the Presidency.

I have to agree and that is why I will NOT and CANNOT vote Trump.  I see him worse and more dangerous than Hillary.

#Never Trump

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201511/therapists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/23/donald-trump-elections-2016-diagnosis-narcissism-personality-disorder-column/82128174/

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/a-neuroscientist-explains-trump-has-a-mental-disorder-that-makes-him-a-dangerous-world-leader/

He is a classic narcissist. When he refers to himself in the third person- I want to vomit.

[austingirl]

Annieokie, don't apologize for liking Trump at first.  I will still say that he did us a great service by saying things that everyone else was either afraid of saying, or wasn't being heard when they said it.  Now, looking back we can say he didn't mean it or fully understand what he was advocating, but the fact remains that he broke the politically-correct-speech-only mold.

Agree completely. Trump said some un-PC things at the beginning and I applaud that. But his campaign has devolved into braggadocio, insults, name-calling and his lack of preparation has become apparent. His rudeness, crudeness, problems with strong women,  the Bruce Jenner toilet remarks, and history of liberal positions and support make it impossible for me to support him. He is an authoritarian who will not respect the Constitution any more than Zero has.

[HonestJohn]

He is a classic narcissist. When he refers to himself in the third person- I want to vomit.

Not even Obama refers to himself in the third-person.  And if he's a narcissist... what does that make Trump?

[austingirl]

Not even Obama refers to himself in the third-person.  And if he's a narcissist... what does that make Trump?

A double, triple, quadruple narcissist? Trump does take narcissism to another level. Psychiatrists may have to coin another term for his particular personality disorder.