Is Trump Just Plain Nuts?

[MajGenl.Meade]

http://www.republicansforher2016.com/ Listened to the lead guy from this today on NPR. Made sense.

We are Republicans, proud of the party of Lincoln, and of Ford too, of Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronnie Reagan, of Ike and the Bushes, 41 and 43.

We believe that the survival of American liberty is best assured by limited, constitutional government, and that the success of liberty – the pursuit of happiness by American individuals and families – is best ensured by free enterprise.

We also believe in the fundamental American consensus which existed from World War II through the emergence of the 1960's "New Left," which saw American global power as a force for good in the world, as the indispensable shield behind which human progress could happen, both at home and for all humanity.

In any other year, we would be working hard to elect the Republican nominee for President of United States, regardless of differences any of us might have with particular policies of that person.

But this is 2016. The Republican nominee is utterly unfit, by character, temperament, experience, and professed ideas – to the extent any ideas can be discerned – to be the President of our great nation.

We are organizing to do all we can to elect Hillary Clinton President this November.

Of course, there are many things on which we disagree with Secretary Clinton.

While she has critiqued Senator Sanders for being unrealistic in his stated objective of transforming the United States into a Democratic Socialist Republic, modeled on the states of northern Europe, she has not rejected that vision as a worthy goal. Instead, she has offered herself as the better vehicle by which to reach that goal someday, through a pragmatic incrementalism.

But disagreements over tax rates, spending plans and government regulations, all pale into insignificance if the United States elects a demagogue and wannabe authoritarian, whose pronouncements on America's role in the world and the world in which America lives, to the extent they are coherent at all, herald an unacceptable risk to national security.

When Ronald Reagan ran for election, he told America to be mindful of a "bear in the woods". Today, the world is a veritable “Hunger Games” arena, with Putin’s Russia, the Chinese army, the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, the unhinged leader of North Korea, and the monsters of ISIS and its fellow travelers within the Jihadi movement, all vying to be the beast which takes down the United States of America.

Despite ordinary election rhetoric, presidents really don’t control the American economy or, while Supreme Court nominations do matter, the most important things in our civil society. This goes even for Liberal Democrats, who might want such control. But presidents do have unequalled power and responsibility in matters of war and peace.

So, while there are many reasons to do so, domestic as well as foreign, most fundamentally, we come together as Republicans for Hillary 2016 because we believe a President Trump could well blunder or be sucked into what could become World War III. He could well get our children killed.

Donald Trump must be defeated. Down the road, America will have plenty of time to go back to arguing, civilly and thoughtfully, about taxes, spending, and the right balance between accommodating change and preserving tradition in family and community values.

Just a relatively few Republicans, who love their country more than a political party, can be the difference in this election.

Please join us.

[Lord Jim]

Makes a lot of sense to me too...

(Of course it would since it's pretty much what I've been saying for months... )

I think this in particular states it well:

But disagreements over tax rates, spending plans and government regulations, all pale into insignificance if the United States elects a demagogue and wannabe authoritarian, whose pronouncements on America's role in the world and the world in which America lives, to the extent they are coherent at all, herald an unacceptable risk to national security.

[Guinevere]

Not to mention his xenophobic, racist view of the world. Which is an issue both internationally and at home.

[Sue U]

Let Donald be Donald!!!

Leave Donald aloooooooone!!!!!!11!!1!


(I am enjoying this way too much. )

[Big RR]

I wish I could enjoy it (and I do get a laugh now and then); but the fact is that he could win the presidency (although it is extremely unlikely that he would). And any chance of that is too horrible to contemplate.

[Bicycle Bill]

I wish I could enjoy it (and I do get a laugh now and then); but the fact is that he could win the presidency (although it is extremely unlikely that he would). And any chance of that is too horrible to contemplate.

I'm just worried about what might happen if Donald DOES drop out — or the RNC throws him out — and they replace him with someone who *COULD* beat Hillary.  Just because almost any other Republican is a better choice than Trump does not mean that they are not still Republicans, and we can see what the GOP track record has been over the past eight years.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

I'm just worried very hopeful about what might happen if Donald DOES drop out — or the RNC throws him out — and they replace him with someone who *COULD* beat Hillary.

FTFY

[BoSoxGal]

Pardon me for saying so, but your party doesn't deserve a second chance this year. Almost all the leaders caved to the lure of Chump's popularity and turned a blind eye to all the obvious signs that he was unfit to serve - they were there from the first speech announcing his candidacy! The GOP has fomented the hatred and divisiveness that led to Chump's nomination by the tone it has set and the craziness it has encouraged since 1992.

Go, Chump, Go! No do-overs for the whiny bitches in your party - suck it up and vote for Hillary, or don't.

[RayThom]

''He's Tan, Rested and Ready":

[Big RR]

Be careful BSG--you may get a lot more than you bargained for.

[rubato]

The beauty part is that for the next generation Democrats can run against "The party that overwhelmingly said Donald Trump would be a good president."



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LOL

Another example of Rube Math...

A plurality is "overwhelming"...

But then what can you expect from a guy who thinks 51 is higher than 63 and that the difference between 1945 and 1972 is 17...

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

As she frequently does, Peggy nails it:

The Week They Decided He Was Crazy

Trump inflicts one wound after another on his campaign.

By Peggy Noonan
Aug. 4, 2016 7:40 p.m. ET


I think this week marked a certain coming to terms with where the election is going. Politics is about trends and tendencies. The trends for Donald Trump are not good, and he tends not to change.

All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted. The arrows he’s taken are arrows he shot. We have in seven days witnessed his undignified and ungrateful reaction to a Gold Star family; the odd moment with the crying baby; the one-on-one interviews, which are starting to look like something he does in the grip of a compulsion, in which Mr. Trump expresses himself thoughtlessly, carelessly, on such issues as Russia, Ukraine and sexual harassment; the relitigating of his vulgar Megyn Kelly comments from a year ago; and, as his fortunes fell, his statement that he “would not be surprised” if the November election were “rigged.” Subject to an unprecedented assault by a sitting president who called him intellectually and characterologically unfit for the presidency, Mr Trump fired back—at Paul Ryan and John McCain.

The mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview with Philip Rucker in which five times by my count—again, the compulsion—Mr. Trump departed the meat of the interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: “Lot of energy. We got a lot of energy.” Minutes later: “Look at this. It’s all Trump all day long. That’s why their ratings are through the roof.” He’s all about screens, like a toddler hooked on iPad.

Mr. Trump spent all his time doing these things instead of doing his job: making the case for his policies, expanding on his stands, and taking the battle to Hillary Clinton.

By the middle of the week the Republican National Committee was reported to be frustrated, party leaders alarmed, donors enraged. There was talk of an “intervention.”

Here is a truth of life. When you act as if you’re insane, people are liable to think you’re insane. That’s what happened this week. People started to become convinced he was nuts, a total flake.

It was there in the polls. Fox News shows Mrs. Clinton with a 10-point lead, with Mr. Trump at 78% of the Republican vote, compared with Mitt Romney’s 93% in 2012. Mr. Romney won the white vote by 20 points; Mr. Trump is ahead by 10. “High-end Republicans are walking away,” says a GOP oppo guy. “Who is choking now?” The battleground states, too, have turned bad.

This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious about running for president. He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no “pivot.” It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it’s that he doesn’t have the skill set needed now—discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There’s a clueless quality about him. It’s not that he doesn’t get advice; it’s that he can’t hear advice, can’t process it or turn it into action.

“He’ll reach out, he’ll start to listen. He’ll change, soften.” No, he won’t. Nor will he start to understand that his blunders are a form of shown disrespect for his own supporters. They put themselves on the line for him, many at some cost. What he’s giving them in return is a strange, bush-league, pull-it-out-of-your-ear, always-indulge-your-emotions campaign. They deserve better.

And while Mr. Trump was doing this, Mrs. Clinton was again lying about her emails, reminding us there’s crazy there, too. She insisted to Chris Wallace that FBI director James Comey endorsed her sincerity and veracity. No he didn’t, and everyone knows he didn’t. She’d have spent the past week defending her claims if it weren’t for Mr. Trump’s tireless attempts to kill Mr. Trump.

His supporters hope it will all turn around in the debates: He’ll wipe the floor with her; for the first time she’ll be toe-to-toe with someone who speaks truth to power. But why do they assume this? Are they watching Mrs. Clinton? She doesn’t look very afraid of him. “No, Donald, you don’t,” she purred in her acceptance speech. In debate she’ll calmly try to swat him away, cock her head, look at the moderator, smile. She’ll be watching old videos of Reagan-Carter in 1980: “There you go again.”

She is aware no one believes she’s honest and trustworthy. If there’s one thing Mrs. Clinton knows it’s how to read a poll. She has accepted that people understand her. Her debate approach will be this: In spite of what will no doubt be some uncomfortable moments, she will, in comparison with him, seem sturdy and grounded—normal. That, this week, could be her bumper sticker: “Hillary: Way Less Abnormal.”

More of her piece here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-week-th ... ?mg=id-wsj

[Lord Jim]

I just want to get past the election so they can't bring in a 'ringer' at the last minute.

I'm just worried about what might happen if Donald DOES drop out — or the RNC throws him out — and they replace him with someone who *COULD* beat Hillary.

Pardon me for saying so, but your party doesn't deserve a second chance this year.

Well, there's three folks who certainly seem to recognize the fact that Hilary is such a vulnerable candidate, that she'd be in danger of losing to a different Republican nominee, even one imposed by an RNC coup that forcibly removed Trump...

[Big RR]

Personally, I'm willing to take that chance if it means Trump cannot be elected. My guess is it would be an uphill battle for any republican who was part of such a coup as they would lose many Trump supporters (probably most of them), part of the republican constituency. He or she would also be behind in campaigning and fundraising, not a good position when the election is weeks away. and FWIW, even if they could oust Trump, I doubt the repubs could agree on another candidate-- Cruz? Kasich? Pence? Bush? They didn't have a primary candidate that could beat Trump, so it would be hard to beat Hillary with all these problems.

[Burning Petard]

I must not be paying attention. I have not noticed the Donald doing anything to damage himself in the last 24 hours.

snailgate

[Big RR]

Must be a big faux pas coming then in the near future. Or maybe he went to Assholes Anonymous and is in the first step? (sorry oldr)

[oldr_n_wsr]

Don't be dissin' the AA name.

[Bicycle Bill]

I'm just worried about what might happen if Donald DOES drop out — or the RNC throws him out — and they replace him with someone who *COULD* beat Hillary.

Well, there's three folks who certainly seem to recognize the fact that Hilary is such a vulnerable candidate, that she'd be in danger of losing to a different Republican nominee, even one imposed by an RNC coup that forcibly removed Trump...

That was my take on the matter, LJ, and it's not that I think Hillary is unfit for office it's just that Trump is *SO* unfit that many undecided voters as well as prominent Republicans themselves are distancing themselves from him as much as possible.  I think that with a different person carrying the banner many of those temporarily enlightened Republicans who vote the party rather than the man (yeah, and I'm kinda lookin' at you there, Jim) would return and support the 'new' GOP candidate, as well as the people who would cast their ballot for *any* male before they'd vote for a female and would therefore vote Republican ¹, would turn it into a far closer race than it rightly should be.

It's just that Trump, by being Trump, has given Ms. Clinton and the Democrats a huge gift, and as long as Trump keeps on being the idiotic asshole that he is he will continue to be the most valuable resource in the Democrats' campaign.  I just don't want Clinton et al to take note of all these polls, settle into complacency, and try to coast to a win.
———————
¹ — Look at what happened to Walter Mondale in 1984 when he selected Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate.  Remember some of the campaign "slogans" that circulated back then about voting for "Wally and The Beaver", or the way some people referred to them as "Fritz and Titz"?  He ended up carrying only his own home state of Minnesota.  Now, granted he was running against Ronald Reagan, who was coming off a relatively successful first term, but I still don't believe that it was his policies and record alone that won him such a landslide.

-"BB"-