Donald Trump

The GOP Should Steal the Nomination from Trump

Trump supporters will be angry either way

|

Donald Trump booster and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham recently urged the GOP's remaining candidates to avoid a "bloodbath" at the Republican National Convention. "I don't see what the point of all this is," she explained.

Well that is a great point, actually: taking the nomination away from Trump.

Sen. Ted Cruz could still conceivably win. But there's no soft landing in this scenario. No rapprochement. No team-building exercise is going to fix the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. There is only going to be a crackup, no matter who captures the nomination. If that's true, and if it means one side has to prevail, why not save your party from a hostile takeover that could potentially cost it both the Senate and the House?

The key would be denying Trump the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the nomination. Cruz (maybe with Gov. John Kasich) could still pull together the requisite number of delegates to block Trump from winning before the convention.

Voters don't decide the nominations; delegates do, preferably in smoke-filled rooms where rational decisions about the future of a party can be hashed out. The Republican Party is not a direct democracy. It crafts its own rules, and it can change them. Here are questions that Republican delegates should be asking themselves: Is it worth upsetting a bunch of angry, marginally conservative voters who often have a minor fidelity to the doctrines of your party? Or are you prepared to put your political infrastructure and full weight behind a cartoonish George Wallace-like character who'll probably inflict more damage than you could ever hope to repair?

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus says that he expects every GOP presidential candidate to uphold a pledge to support the eventual nominee. Considering what we heard in Sen. Marco Rubio's concession speech, I find this difficult to believe. At best, Priebus is going to have a bunch politicians tiptoeing around Trump in tacit nonsupport. And if enough big-name Republicans end up supporting Trump, it only accentuates the need for a new party.

An ABC exit poll—with all the usual caveats about the unreliability of exit polls—said that 6 in 10 non-Trump supporters say they would "seriously consider a third party if he became the GOP's nominee." The more disgust that his big government positioning and ugly rhetoric generate, the higher that number rises. And there are a number of rational reasons to support such a run.

For starters, Trump supporters are already very angry about everything. It's not like they could be any angrier with the establishment. Once Trump is gone (and he'll leave with no coherent movement), these voters will either have to come back and look for alternate candidates with compelling messages, or leave the party altogether.

In the short run, a third-party candidate may insulate down-ballot candidates from Trumpism. You do remember Todd Akin, I'm sure? Imagine a candidate being ceaselessly asked to comment on the various impulsive and unsavory positions that the presidential nominee has taken. For example, "Do you agree with the GOP nominee that children of terrorists should be executed?"

Offering a conservative alternative—whether it be Cruz, Sen. Ben Sasse or whoever—would allow candidates to endorse someone who jibed more faithfully with their beliefs. This could shield them somewhat from this dynamic.

A third party would also help sink Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Electing a weakened and corrupt Democrat that Republicans would unite against in Congress is a far better reality than allowing a charlatan to hollow out a party from within.

It is an utter disaster, not only for Republicans, but for the entire nation, to have one functioning political party. Despite some wishful thinking on the left, conservatives have often held their own in Congress these past eight years. Supporting gridlock is a conservative position, even if it's not ideal. In fact, GOP voters would be better off thinking about Washington, D.C., as a collection of institutions, with the legislative branch being the more realistic center of conservative power.

Earlier this week, Rubio (the most hated man from the establishment since Jeb Bush helmed the ship) argued that conservatives who back Trump will one day ask themselves, "My God, what have we done?" This gives politicians like Gov. Chris Christie far too much credit for introspection. But for those who still care about the underlying principles of their party, it probably still matters. And it's important to remember that the primary process rules are neither chiseled into stone on Mount Sinai nor part of the Constitution.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Third Parties: A Beginner's Guide

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You may find yourself, living in a shotgun shack…

  2. “You may find yourself, living in a shotgun shack?”
    ?with Ann Coulter and no rubbers.

    1. Can we at least get ear plugs or a gag? I don’t think a rubber would be enough protection anyway.

      1. Rubber suit for Coulter with only a nose hole might work.

        1. Her elbows, shoulder blades, knees, hipbones, and ankle spurs are pointy enough to shred even the toughest of rubber suits.

        2. If there’s a shotgun in the shotgun shack, not for long.

  3. “You may find yourself, living in a shotgun shack…”
    …with Megyn Kelly and no tampons.

    1. I can live with that. Although the bears may become a concern…

        1. *sets net trap*

          He’s not getting away this time.

      1. Just let the bears have her… whatever.

    2. Well if Slate has there way tampons will be covered by Medicaid and/or food stamps.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_…..s_and.html

      1. That’s a sticky subject.

  4. You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large woodchipper

    1. You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large woodchipper

      Yeah, that threat of fascism is now as great as the 1950s.

    2. I want the Iron Man armor. Complete with woodchipper attachment.

  5. Is it worth upsetting a bunch of angry, marginally conservative voters who often have a minor fidelity to the doctrines of your party?

    Is that a joke? The party has no fidelity to the doctrines of the Party.

    Smaller government? Are you joking?
    Repeal Obamacare? Ever hear that Congress controls the budget?

    I could go on.

    Trump has as much fidelity to Party doctrines as the Party does.

    1. Yes, how dare they compromise in order to get bills passed by a Congress that includes a wide variety of political viewpoints and signed by a left wing president.

      1. How can the President veto “we ain’t spending no money on Obamacare?”

        The explanation should be interesting.

        1. There were several posts on this site around 2013 when someone currently running to POTUS tried to shut down the gov’t over Obamacare. The funding for Obamacare is built into the legislation. It would require a change in the law and have to be either signed or have enough votes to over-ride a veto

          1. “running for” – edit button

        2. How would congressional spending affect the individual mandate?

        3. How can the President veto “we ain’t spending no money on Obamacare?

          He doesn’t have to,

          The explanation should be interesting.

          When a sizable majority of voters oppose repeal? Interesting? Like mass suicide?

          Obamacare exists, more as a massive fucking failure by the GOP..
          Listen to the so-called strict conservatives pissing and moaning about entitlements … when the most massive threat by far is Medicare and …. they have no fucking alternative. Conservative purists, like libertarian purists, scream, “We don’t need no fucking solution.”

          Watch closely for the shell game.
          When Medicare is seen as an entitlement, “Runaway spending must be stopped.”
          When Medicare is seen as insurance, “We don’t need no steeenking solution.”

          This country is in deep shit, mostly because neither party has a clue how to get us out of the mess they both created. So they attack each other because they have nothing to offer, and spout slogans and buzzwards to their base — each base prox 25% of the voters …. the REAL reason both base are drawn to outsiders, .

          The “elites” are Cruz and his ilk on the right, but they are great at shifting the blame and suckering their puppets into believing the right has no strict PC requirements.

          1. Uh. Obamacare is raising the cost of medical insurance. Deductibles are up too. It is not as popular as you think.

            1. Uh. Obamacare is raising the cost of medical insurance. Deductibles are up too. It is not as popular as you think.

              Total non sequitur. Most Americans want major changes. Most Americans do not want repeal.

              Again, this shows the GOP is STILL fucking up, after all these years.
              How much easier would it be if the GOP had something to compare with?
              Free-market phrases and buzzwords are a clear failure, making the GOP increasingly culpable for the consequences.

              Their only specific policy proposals are (literally) Medicare vouchers and (largely) selling across state lines. Cato is no better

              Golly, the defenders of free markets are … targeting the wrong market!
              Can we affect the automobile market with more competition between Allstate and GEICO?

          2. Obamacare is fucking bullshit. The “Platnum plan”, which is inferior to the mediocre Assurant plan I was on in 2013 now costs almost $800 per month where I live. Versus $247 per. Onto for better coverage just three years ago.

            1. Obamacare is fucking bullshitAs bad as that is, the GOP STILL has no real alternative. Most Americans want changes, but also oppose repeal. But GOP candidates are babbling about repeal … to hold their base … after lying they COULD repeal it, this trapped by their own bullshit. Will they campaign AGAINST a majority of voters this year?

        4. How can the President veto “we ain’t spending no money on Obamacare?”

          By vetoing the spending bill that doesn’t include the legally-required spending on ObamaCare.

          No pay for soldiers. No payments to Medicare doctors. No Social Security checks. Etc, etc.

          Now, traditionally this is the part where the GOP base bleats “and Obama will get blamed for that”. This is because the GOP base is deeply stupid and assumes the rest of the country hates Obama as much as they do. Meanwhile, back in reality, Congress is far more hated than Obama is and always gets the actual blame.

          Personally, as much as I loathe Obama and ObamaCare, a small, mean part of me is very much looking forward to the screams from the Trumptards when Hillary sticks them with another four to eight years of ObamaCare and a couple of new left-wing SCOTUS justics to boot. All because they were too ignorant and immature to wait two whole fuckin’ years for a friendly President to get elected.

          1. C/mon, Dan. eveyone one knows that most Americans are EAGER for a government shutdown — with no alternatives, Ask Ted Cruz.
            🙂

      2. And, of course, the pork. Never forget the pork.

        1. Hmm, this was supposed to have been a reply to Nick W B.

    2. Yes, how dare they compromise in order to get bills passed by a Congress that includes a wide variety of political viewpoints and signed by a left wing president.

      1. If your position is the government should be 30% smaller and their position is it should be 10% bigger then making it 8% bigger really isn’t a compromise.

        Unless of course what the republicans actually want is for the government to be 7% bigger instead of 10% and I suspect that is actually the case.

        1. The vast majority of politicians don’t think in terms of the size of government. They think in terms of how many votes they can buy with this program or that program. For instance, “this law will force person A to serve person B whom he despises.” Are there more votes from A type people or from B type people? Or more likely are there more cash donations from A’s or from B’s?

        2. If your position is the government should be 30% smaller

          You have a commanding 15% of the electorate, If that.

          1. If there were less progressives, there would be less problems. Ergo, reduce the number of orogressives. Preferably to zero.

            1. Fewer progressives and fewer conservatives. To the tune of a couple of hundred million.

              That’s what it would take to cut the budget significantly. The vast majority of “conservatives” *and* “liberals” are stuck on stupid when it comes to spending and taxation.

            2. If there were less progressives, there would be less problems.

              Tribalism is already destroying the GOP — which is just as stupid.

        3. Like George Will pointed out in the video Reason linked earlier this week, the only part of government that a majority of Americans support cutting is foreign aid, which is around 1% of the budget.

          The GOP base claims to care about cutting government spending. They’re full of crap. They support increased military spending and oppose cuts to the big and ever-growing middle-class entitlements (social security and medicare). The actual reality is that the Democrats are demanding bigger government and so is the GOP base. It is just that the GOP base lives in a fantasy world where military spending has been “slashed” and aid for the poor is the major entitlement cost.

          1. That’s because the GOP has NO plan for cutting spending, which can then be compared to the voters.
            Just the same anti-gummint slogans and buzzwords crippling the libertarian movement.

    3. No team-building exercise is going to fix the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party.

      Unless Trump is exactly what he says he is and exactly what he appears to be – a deal-maker. He has absolutely no fixed principles, no litmus tests, no lines in the sand, he’ll do or say whatever it takes to win – lie, cheat, steal, stab his friends in the back; he’s the perfect embodiment of the GOP. He can be best buds with the GOP establishment, he’s their kinda guy. The problem is that you’re still holding on to the idea that the GOP stands for something and that that something is the lower taxes, smaller government horseshit they’ve been spewing for years and years all the while they’ve been supporting growing government just as much as the Dems.

      Let’s cut the crap and admit all the GOP wants is to win and they don’t fear Trump because of his ideas being inimical to the GOP, it’s that they fear he will lose with those ideas. Winning is all that matters to Trump and winning is all that matters to the GOP – if Trump wins the GOP will rush to embrace him. If you’ve got principles and values and standards that you’re not willing to sacrifice in order to win you belong over here in the LP with the rest of us pathetic losers who think trading your soul for a political win isn’t a deal worth making.

      1. I thing you are absolutely right Jerry.

        1. The only way to ultimately save America is through a drastic reduction in the number of progressives. Period.

      2. he sounds like every other politician out there so I don’t see where the anger towards him specificlly comes from. and that is what i find so amusing. maybe its because he has revealed what no one wants to see.

        1. He’s saying mean, forbidden things, though. I NEED MY SAFE SPACE.

      3. How does the fact that democrats are leaving their primaries in droves to vote for Trump fit into your neat little theory of the GOP?

        1. A) They like Trump’s f-u messaging.
          B) They want Hillary to win so bad that they think Trump is a guaranteed loss for the Republicans.

          Is A more likely, or B?

      4. if Trump wins the GOP will rush to embrace him.

        I assume you mean the nomination. The mot obvious consequence will be many more Congressional candidates renouncing him.
        THEY now the entire Congress is at risk,

        1. Should Trump win, I hope he deals with the GOP establishment like this……..

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m0RvDZFN71A

          1. He’d be impeached in his first month.

    4. Repeal Obamacare?
      Ever hear that Congress controls the budget?

      Defunding Obamacare — with no alternative — was fucking stupid when Cruz tried it.

      Libertarian goobers scream in unison …. “We don’t need to fucking alternative. Just repeal it!”

      “What about Medicare stealing a quarter-trillion dollars per year from income taxes — stolen by the Trust Fund in accounting terms — which is how Bush ‘paid for’ Medicare Prescriptions?”

      Libertarian goobers, ” …………”

      So Republicans, empowered by a new sense of purity, accept advice from 3% of the electorate, “on principle.”

      1. It was stupid to attempt a repeal huh? Ok. Well what they did is inflating costs, so please expound on what form of state controlled medical system you think should exist? Perhaps just nationalize the whole thing and go full retard? Sounds like a plan. Actually, when you look at it, that is literally at least one candidates plan.

        The people that say there should be a replacement are really just saying the current system didn’t do what they wanted. Specifically, they wanted free healthcare because there are zero things the government can do in order to actually control costs and people who say they can are flat out lying about it.

        This is why when Hillary says they need to ‘tweak’ Obamacare they don’t expound on it; they have no fucking clue how to make the state do a thing it’s incapable of doing in healthcare. Namely, control costs.

        1. Actually there is one thing they can do in order to control costs, which is restrict access. This is something the NHS knows quite well, as does every other country that has supposedly ‘free’ or ‘universal’ healthcare. There is no such animal.

          The only difference is instead of it being restricted by the market, it’s restricted by the government. It is by definition a worse system no matter how you twist it with legislation.

          1. Well, the good news is that libertarians will get what they want in the end. When the whole healthcare system collapses due to the financial distortions caused by decades of regulations piled on top of regulations and pooling of people against their will or best interests, people will be bartering directly with their local physicians for the health care they deem worth buying and at prices they are willing and able to pay, just like a century or two ago.

            “I’ll trade you one block of cheese to have this broken arm set.”

            It’ll be glorious. Our job as the dissenting minority is to make sure we escape paying into the system as much as we possibly can and be ready to self-sustain when the collapse comes.

            1. Indeed correct. Our only strategy is to sit around waiting for it to collapse. Scary.
              But you’re quite mistaken on how it worked before FDR.

            2. Well, libertarians pretty much spend most of their time pants shitting and hand wringing.

              1. The “Nolan libertarians” (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) don’t do that, are a majority of voters (Cato)) and 91% of them reject the libertarian brand (Cato)

            3. I need a heart transplant, you want your bitchy wife to disappear. Let’s make a deal.

        2. They could increase transparency.

          Face it, free markets, when they work, work on the ability to “shop around”. With the obfuscation of medical costs that’s a very difficult thing to do in America.

          So hell, just a bit of regulation requiring doctor’s offices to post the final pre-insurance and post-insurance cost of every procedure they’ve done over the last year, with the caveat that this means nothing about *your* costs, would allow people to be more informed and actually “shop around”.

          Another thing would be to do more to support people paying up-front without insurance. Many doctor’s offices *do* have prices for services if you pay in cash, but because of the how ingrained health insurance is in our society at the moment, most people don’t ask. And without the afore-mentioned transparency, it’s hard to know if you’ll pay less for paying up-front without insurance vs. paying later with insurance. So more transparency here, both in posting prices/telling people their options and encouraging tax-free health savings accounts (can’t remember proper name) might help out.

          Yes, these would require new regulations. But if you want a “free market” solution, I think regulations regarding transparency might be an important first step.

          1. EscherEnigma|3
            They could increase transparency.
            Face it, free markets, when they work, work on the ability to “shop around”. With the obfuscation of medical costs that’s a very difficult thing to do in America.

            Useless when consumers have llittle or no skin in the game .. which none of the “free-marlet” think tanks has figured out, includign Cato,

        3. It was stupid to attempt a repeal huh?

          Not quite as stupid as this, but yeah.

          Ok. Well what they did is inflating costs, so please expound on what form of state controlled medical system you think should exist?

          Please expound how ou can make such totally stupid statements.

          The people that say there should be a replacement are really just saying the current system didn’t do what they wanted. Umm, does it do what YOU want Or do you agree with them.

      2. Libertarian goobers, ” …………”

        That’s like saying “Trump never talks about illegal immigration”. It is hilarious to anyone who pays even casual attention to the real world.

        1. Libertarian goobers scream in unison …. “We don’t need to fucking alternative. Just repeal it!”

          That’s like saying “Trump never talks about illegal immigration”. .

          You must be new here!

    5. Ted Cruz practically took his whole platform from professed party doctrine, and the party seems to hate him worse than it hates Trump.

      1. Maybe because he’s Lucifer…

        1. When did he steal the throne from Hillary?

      2. Maybe the party know how messed up professed party doctrine is. That’s supposed to be for the rubes, not the people who matter.

  6. The pants shitting will continue until morale improves.

    1. Two points!

  7. Once Trump is gone (and he’ll leave with no coherent movement), these voters will either have to come back and look for alternate candidates with compelling messages, or leave the party altogether.

    In other words – “You have no choice.”

    The pants shitters are insane. Just insane. Winning elections is about adding votes. Harsanyi councils subtraction.

    “Can’t anyone play this game?” – Casey Stengel, but it applies.

    1. If the GOP had ever shown actual adherence to limited government principles, I might agree with Harsanyi here. But they have always espoused one thing and done another. I don’t see what he is fighting for.

      1. Well, we’ve got “angry” voters (and since anger is bad, we can ignore them), forcing voters to accept bad candidates for the good of the party, and talk of party loyalty.

        Sure, this doesn’t look awful at all.

        1. This is largely the direct result of a two party system where third parties are allowed to exist, but hamstrung by campaign finance reform and election regulations to the point where they cannot contest the two main players.

          Eventually, when people get disgusted with the bipartisan abuse, they run a third party candidates inside the main parties’ structure. It’s happening on both sides of the aisle, Trump is just better at it and benefiting from a fractured GOP candidate slate.

          1. Bingo!

          2. A celebrity billionaire running as an independent would find those supposed obstacles merely an annoyance. Remember Ross Perot? If he had been a little less flaky he could have won. And you might have noticed that campaign spending has had no causal relationship to vote totals this year. A third party with a strong candidate and adequate news coverage could absolutely contest the two main players, especially if those two parties nominate candidates people hate and/or don’t trust.

            1. Maybe, but from Trumps point of view, it probably looked safer to run as a Republican. After all, it didn’t end well for Perot.

            2. I think Perot started thinking, “My God! I might actually win this. Better self-destruct now.”

              1. Or he was a approached by men in black bearing compromising photos, of if you believe that story.

        2. BURN IT DOWN.

            1. I was thinking maybe more like this: https://youtu.be/SEsgETyGCYA

      2. If republicans were actively trying to shrink the government, I doubt I would have joined the libertarian party.

        1. The libertarian party is good at shrinking the libertarian party. They just need to harness that and refocus it.

          1. I would like to agree with you, but being registered L won’t allow me. Sorry, not sorry.

      3. If the GOP had ever shown actual adherence to limited government principles, I might agree with Harsanyi here. But they have always espoused one thing and done another. I don’t see what he is fighting for.

        The entire GOP isn’t going to be POTUS. There are individuals running that have records and at least one of them has displayed more than once that they hold some limited government principles.

        1. Perhaps Charlie Brown is tired of Lucy pulling the ball away at the last second.

          I’m not advocating for Trump here. I’m saying that the GOP and DNC have only themselves to blame for their current predicaments.

          1. Don’t disagree with that at all. I prefer they find a remedy to the predicament and become an actual limited gov’t party. I think that’s the point of the post, but maybe I read it wrong.

            1. despite some wishful thinking on the left, conservatives have often held their own in Congress these past eight years. Supporting gridlock is a conservative position, even if it’s not ideal.

              This is what sticks in my craw. They were consistently rolling over for Obama under Boehner and Ryan just passed a horrible budget deal. They suck.

              1. This is what sticks in my craw. They were consistently rolling over for Obama under Boehner and Ryan just passed a horrible budget deal. They suck.

                Agreed. I just wish that was the reason for the Trumpacolypse, but that’s not it. Nothing about voting for Trump says “I prefer limited government”.

                1. We weren’t going to get limited government anyway. Rand is out of the race.

                  Might as well poke the eGOP in the eye.

                  1. We weren’t going to get limited government anyway. Rand is out of the race.

                    He had NOTHING except a tax “plan” as crazy as his dad’s and a goofy plan to balance the budget in five years … which is too extreme for even Ayn Rand.

                    But he is a EXTREME social conservative, promoting religious tent revivals all across America and inventing his own constitution,

                  2. And many libertarians spent their time picking him apart for any perceived inconsistency. Rather than acting as boosters for his candidacy. As did this publication.

                    1. You can’t allow any even remotely libertarianish politician to gain any traction. That might corrupt libertarian principles and undermine the justification for any kind of self-righteousness. It may even lead to some kind of political power, which can not be tolerated.

                2. But how many Trump supporters are/were Tea Party members who TRIED to indicate they want limited government, only to be shoved aside by the Republican establishment? So, next comes Trump. It may not be as “logical”, but radicalism isn’t about logic. And if the GOP neutralizes Trump, the mass will look for something even MORE radical as a solution. That’s why there’s been nothing amusing or “grab the popcorn” for me in all of this. People get so sick of being run over coming and going, are sick of being voiceless, that even if they are individualist, they will illogically turn to a populist demagogue in the hopes they will set things right, somehow. And if it’s not Trump, there’s something on the other side of him. And then the OWS crowd will look for something more strident than Uncle Bernie, and eventually one will win out. And we’ll have a massive surveillance state, with a library of “laws” (legislated and case) to crucify whomever they please.

                  And let’s not pretend, that for many, there’s not nihilism for many in all of this. If they feel they can use Trump as a battering ram to destroy the establishment, then they will have won. They don’t know what they are asking for. When Trump ultimately fails, whether by losing, getting stripped of the nomination, wins but is neutralized by the establishment even in Power, they nihilists will look for something else, and again it will be countered from a further fringe left “solution”.

                  1. So the elites are destroying the country.

                    And voting for xxx is not a solution.

                    What to do? What to do?

                  2. “And we’ll have a massive surveillance state, with a library of “laws” (legislated and case) to crucify whomever they please.”

                    We have been going this way for what, the past 25-30 years at least, beginning with the drug war, then the war on terror, I don’t see any end to wars of the state against its own citizens. In fact, Trump’s calling for his fans to beat up protestors is the personification of an aggressive central government.

                  3. Another reaso. To rise up and cleanse our society of its progressives. Before they attempt the same against us.

                  4. But how many Trump supporters are/were Tea Party members who TRIED to indicate they want limited government, only to be shoved aside by the Republican establishment?

                    none

      4. “” I don’t see what he is fighting for.””

        This. Trump is winning because there ARE NO GOP “principles” to defend. The party is like any other party = a collection of interest groups. If some of those groups don’t like their peers, then gtfo and form a different one.

        1. then gtfo and form a different one.

          That possibility has been legislated out of existence.

    2. Winning elections is about adding votes. Harsanyi councils subtraction.

      Maybe I get it now. Harsanyi seems to be projecting libertarian electoral strategy on Republicans – they don’t really care what world they *live* in, they just care about their moral purity. Better to live in the Gulag than compromise your “principles”.

      I don’t think Republicans are really like that.

      And in particular, I really don’t think that Republicans are *more* like that than Trump voters. Republican elites shouldn’t get in a game of chicken with Trump fans over who will flinch first over burning the Republican party to the ground.

      1. It’s burning to the ground regardless.

        1. Which is fine, as lo png as democrats are not a,lowed to use the situation to consolidate their evil power.

        2. “It’s burning to the ground regardless.”

          That might happen, but it’s at best a 50% chance of happening. And if it does happen, the logical result is that the Democratic party will move the political Overton window towards the Left.

          Specifically, I would expect to see

          a) A significant raise in tax rates on the top two brackets.
          b) The minimum wage raised to $12 (HRC’s current position) and then to $15 (Bernie Sanders position)
          c) A large rise in Federal college grants. Somewhere between free college tuition for everyone and free college tuition and room/board for everyone.
          d) A significant increase in the Federal gas tax
          e) A financial transaction tax
          f) Mandatory paid child leave for both parents
          g) Another expansion of Medicaid, mandatory for all states
          h) Expansions in the Obamacare subsidies, to the extent that 50% of the population will pay no health care premiums
          i) Caps on healthcare insurance maximum out of pockets

          And those are the items, I would expect within the next 8 years.

      2. The only purity the GOP values is the purity of their party power structure. Trump is upending their system.

        1. But he’s only doing it because of the disaffected mob.

          The civics issue is HOW have we gotten to this stage and what inevitably comes after.

          1. Well, all I can tell you is the next slot on the ‘ol cycle of governments wheel is Monarchy then Totalitarianism. So, probably that. Considering that both the left and the right are putting forward authoritarians this lines up exactly as expected.

            1. Yep, Perhaps Alexander Hamilton was right to call for a monarch. At least royal families tend to do themselves in through inbreeding.

    3. Winning elections is about adding votes. Harsanyi councils subtraction.

      Because Trump is already a loss for him.

      1. WHER MAH REPUBICN PARTY GAN

    4. Maybe Simon and Garfunkel should has sung “Where have you gone, Marv Throneberry?”

    5. Winning elections is about adding votes. Harsanyi councils subtraction.

      Winning elections is about net increase in votes. Adding one Trumptard for every two normal people you lose is not a path to victory.

  8. Poe’s Law in action?

    Anyone feel strongly one way or the other if this Modest Proposal is in earnest or not? I really just can’t tell.

    The basic argument is “show the peasants that democracy is a farce, and that the Top Men will no longer be nice and provide them with a beard to cover the shame of their subjection if they get too uppity. Because principles – rulers rule and peasants suck it, always have, always will. Every so often the peasants get uppity, and you have to bear down and smack em back, even if it’ messy and costs a little in the short term.”

          1. Thus quoth the Servator

        1. +1 bottle of laudanum

    1. I think the blinders are coming off – as you point out. Excellent work !

    2. The party has fuck all to do with democracy. It’s a private organization.

      1. A private organization that has made the voters jump through a series of hoops only to say, “None of what you’ve done really matters. Thanks for playing.”

        Worse than FIFA.

        1. “None of what you’ve done really matters. Thanks for playing.”

          Is there anyone stupid enough to believe that voting in a primary matters? If so, I’ve got some prime beach front property in Colorado I’m lookin’ to sell. I’ll make you a good deal.

          1. Well of course. Trump is just tearing the mask off. Excellent.

      2. Right, but the party wanted to have the illusion of democracy. Why else have votes? This shows the suckers who bothered to vote it was a waste of time.

        1. I voted for Trump in Illinois. I got way more than my money’s worth.

            1. Pants shitting has EXPLODED. You can smell it everywhere.

        2. If the party actually believed the will of the majority should prevail they’d be democrats. The whole damn premise of the republican system is that the common man is an idiot and needs to be smacked upside the head every time he tries clicking on the “Miracle Pill Gives You A Bigger Dick In 5 Days, Guaranteed!” pop-up ad on his favorite porn site. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, but about 99.9% of the public can be conned into thinking there is one and you damn well better take that into consideration before you let them decide to order lunch all by themselves.

          1. favorite porn site

            You didn’t even provide a link?

        3. The rules are set in advance. No majority of delegates, no guarantee.
          You want a party that ignores the will of the voters? Look at the Democrats, with their super Hillary delegates.

          1. This country has gone steadily downhill since we took our boot off the necks of the communist symlathisers.

  9. Fuck the GOP. As terrifyingly awful as Trump is, the whole idea that the party should “steal” the nomination from the candidate their own voters chose – why the fuck even go through the charade of holding primaries and caucuses. It is not as though there is even a decent alternative to Trump. I say let the party disintegrate under the weight of its own corruption and stupidity.

    1. And it would be wrong for those voters who went through the charade to be angry if that happens. Never be angry.

    2. the whole idea that the party should “steal” the nomination from the candidate their own voters chose – why the fuck even go through the charade of holding primaries and caucuses.

      You might just as well have asked why Lucy keeps offering to hold the ball for Charlie Brown.

      All the better to humiliate the peasants.

      Give them the fig leaf of democracy to cover the shame of their subjection, then take it back to show that not only do they have nothing, but that they participated in the lie to the contrary.

      1. the whole idea that the party should “steal” the nomination from the candidate their own voters chose – why the fuck even go through the charade of holding primaries and caucuses.

        Yeah, he kinda answered his own question there. The party ain’t “stealing” the nomination, they’re just demonstrating that it is in fact theirs and the whole nominating process is just a charade. The “will of the voters” is fine and dandy, as long as they pick the candidate we picked for them to pick. The GOP doesn’t belong to the GOP voters, it’s the bought-and-paid-for property of the GOP elites. They’ll let you sit behind the wheel and blow the horn and make ‘vroom, vroom’ noises and pretend like you’re driving this thing, but they ain’t stupid enough to actually give you the keys and let you start ‘er up.

        1. Can’t wait for the GOP to try to shit on Iran about their elections and how the all candidates must be approved by the Ayatollah.

          All hail Ayatollah Romney!

  10. This is the WORST Friday Funnies EVER!

    1. Which makes it hilarious in a “Plan 9” sort of way.

  11. A third party would also help sink Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Electing a weakened and corrupt Democrat that Republicans would unite against in Congress is a far better reality than allowing a charlatan to hollow out a party from within.

    The counterargument is that we think Trump will do the wrong thing, but we know for sure that Hillary will.

    1. But Republicans will only be held responsible for one of them.

      1. The story will be that it’s the Republicans’ fault either way: either for electing a gibbering idiot or being evil obstructionists for the plans of a corrupt harridan.

        1. This.

          No matter what happens, the Stupid Party loses.

    2. After 8 years of Bush and a R congress most of that time ,I say fuck them.They showed they’ll spend and pass overreaching laws just like the D’d. They even created 2 new departments.They are reaping the crap the sowed.

    3. Republicans would unite against in Congress

      This presumes Republicans do well in the Congressional elections.

      1. With Trump as the prez nominee, they are assured of losing the Senate.

        1. Right, because the GOP’s prognosticators have been on spot thus far.

          1. I can see Spot run.

            1. If Spot is running he’ll get my vote over Trump or Hillary.

        2. Why does everyone assume Trump hurts the Republicans’ chances in Congress? He could bring more Tea Party types and more non-voters to the polls, and they sure as heck don’t want Democrats.

    4. If Trump is elected Obama instantly becomes known as one of the greatest presidents ever. To me, this election is all about Obama’s legacy. If Hillary is elected two competing identity politics factions in the Democratic party will be in conflict for decades.

      1. There is no avoiding the hagiographical treatment of Obama’s presidency. The bottom line is he’s First Black President. No amount of actual nuance will be allowed in the public memory no matter what is actually written in the history books. Look at the public perception of Lincoln for an example.

  12. Isn’t stealing a violation of the NAP?

  13. Trump is a strong man! That’s why it is necessary for us to install our own guy absent any popular support. We must thwart democracy to save it. If regime change was good enough for Iraq… Am I right?

    1. ‘The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it”.

      1. “A million deaths are not enough for Priebus!”

  14. Stealing the nomination would kill the republican party.

    1. It’s a dead man walking in any event.

        1. Film at eleven…

          1. ‘But first,are hot dogs killing our children? A new study shows the danger in the bun’.

            1. danger in the bun

              Nice band name.

            2. Is that a Hebrew National in your pants or are you just happy to see me?

              1. Those are good hot dogs,and Omaha Steaks usually sends a pack in the deals.Not bad either with kraut and onions.

                1. You might want to look into who owns Omaha Steaks.

                  1. Jews?

                    1. Damn good product.

                    2. Look deeper.

                      Hint. I grew up in Omaha.

                    3. I have a LOT of cousins in Omaha.

                    4. Mutual of Omaha? Illuminati? Spit it out man.

                2. You know who else sells mail order steaks?

    2. The Republican party has been a zombie since 1964 when the Romney-Rockefeller wing wrecked Goldwater’s campaign. Reagan gave it the illusion of life but now, thanks to Trump, the party has been decapitated and can finally be buried.

      1. Someone’s always writing the obituary of one party or the other every 12 years or so. It never happens.

        1. Yes, this is so true.

      2. Yes, they are doing so badly all of 18 governorships are Democratic now.

  15. This is one of the most poorly written columns I’ve ever seen.

    First, Harsanyi leads off with “The key would be denying Trump the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the nomination.” But then he launches into dreaming about a third party, without explaining what happened to denying Trump the nomination, or making a case for the feasibility of launching a third party at this very late date.

    Reason should ban this awful writer from its pages.

    1. Reason should ban this awful writer from its pages.

      Fuck yeah! And ban Chapman too! And Richman, Dalmia, Gillespie, Rico Suave, Ron Bailey (since he actually thinks burning hydrocarbons does in fact release CO2), and Welch, and all the rest of these COCKTAIL SIPPING KOZMOZ!!1!!11!!!!1111!!!!!

      1. LA la la la la,no opposing view points allowed,

        1. No actual libertarian viewpoints allowed in Reason’s columns either, apparently.

      2. There’s always Lew Rockwell if you don’t like cosmos.

        1. Some of them started a “Libertarians for Trump” group. Not sure how that’s going. But there was a “Libertarian Case for Bernie” on Reason not too long ago.

  16. *pops popcorn, sits back to enjoy the shitshow*

    RELEASE THE KRATRUMPKEN!

    1. BURN IT DOWN!! I’ll need beer for this,and maybe nachos.

  17. Whatever you think of Trump he has brought millions of disaffected people into the Democratic Process. If Harsanyi were anything but an elitist douche bag, he would see that as a good thing. If the Republicans steal the nomination from Trump, those voters will walk away from the political process. I don’t think Harsanyi is going to like that very much and not because of what it would do to Republican Party electoral prospects. You cannot tell millions of people to fuck off and their votes don’t count no matter what they do. You can, but you better be prepared for those people resorting to other means, like terrorism and violence to get their message heard.

    Harsanyi is a short sided, elitist fool. He is one of those small men who sadly held usher in the self destruction of nations and civilizations.

    1. And you think it is a good thing that more apathetic ignorant morons are stepping up to vote for politicians who will be busy micromanaging the details of your life? I don’t. Most people have no business voting and we should have lot’s of PSA’s on the radio pointing this out.

      “And remember kids. Do your patriotic duty and stay the fuck away from the voting booth”

      1. Good luck with that. Those ignorant morons are generally armed. And they make up most of the military.

        1. So not only are they morons but they like to shoot people. And you still think it’s awesome that they are voting? You big on having child molesters watch your grand kids too?

          1. Yeah because the alternative is them shooting people. I would rather them voting than shooting. And so would you if you if you would think about it rather feel smug over who you view as your inferiors, you would too.

            1. So if you tell people they shouldn’t vote their only alternative is to shoot people. Aren’t there other alternatives like

              A. Vote anyway
              B. Don’t vote
              C. Read John’s posts so they know how not to argue
              D. Both B and C

              1. “So if you tell people they shouldn’t vote their only alternative is to shoot people.”

                Historically, through most of the world, that’s been the two options. Even the most corrupt of regimes at least tries to pretend they were voted into office in modern times. If you make the ideal laughable, someone will probably start shooting at someone else.

            2. Ballots over bullets.

      2. This is a Platonic democracy where people are provided the illusion of being important because they vote. Ignorance and stupidity are the major qualifications for voters since anyone with half a brain knows that his vote is meaningless.

      3. And you expect me to believe that the people who make up the roster of GOP delegates are better, smarter people?

      4. more apathetic ignorant morons are stepping up to vote for politicians

        Pass judgment much?

        You’re just as bad as the GOPe jackasses sitting around that table on The Circus.

      5. more apathetic ignorant morons are stepping up to vote for politicians

        Pass judgment much?

        You’re just as bad as the GOPe jackasses sitting around that table on The Circus.

        1. Oooh, do they have any bread?!

    2. You cannot tell millions of people to fuck off and their votes don’t count no matter what they do.

      Actually you can. It happens all the time. Remember Obama saying “I won…”? What was that if not telling all of the RACISTY RACISTS* who didn’t vote for him to fuck off?

      It also happens all the time in 3rd world banana republics. The only difference is we’re a 1st world banana republic. Have been for a while now, this would just make it more obvious.

      *Because it’s not like there’s any other reason to oppose O’s policies, amiright?! Must be TEH RACIZM!1!!!!

      1. You can but it is a bad idea.

        1. I didn’t say it was a good idea. But if the Trumkins are told to fuck off, you seem to be assuming they’ll start rioting/ revolting and killing people. I doubt it. I think more than likely they’ll go back to being the same angry, disaffected people that they were before. Perhaps some protests that the cops will have to crack down on while the oh so tolerant left cheers, but that’s about it. This country is still far too rich and the vast majority of people have it far too good here to actually rebel.

          1. I wouldn’t count on that.

            There’s a massive reckoning of underfunded entitlements about to hit the fan.

            There’s a level of acceptance. I pay just under 50% of my income in taxes of all kinds. If my wife and I make an extra dollar, that dollar is taxed at 50% just in income taxes. And we’re not “rich”. Upper middle class, perhaps, but not rich.

            But I can assure you that I’m not waiting around for the good chunk of that remaining 50% being attacked to balance the books of $20,000,000,000,000 of hard debt and probably at least $60,000,000,000,000 in underfunded entitlements.

            1. cont

              You can TALK about being rich, but when you’re total national debt, hard and accrual, is about the same as, or more, than the estimated wealth in individual hands, the reality of being rich is something else altogether. There is a reckoning at hand between the “get your hands off my stuff” crowd and the “give even more free shit” crowd. And everyone from the boomers after is entitled to the moon. We’re already where we are without much by way of empty stomachs. When the Ponzi schemes either come undone, or massive Force is initiated to secure the next layer, we’ll see what happens. That’s where we are at. Add in an entitled public sector who will be looking for their early retirements and benefits, at the Fed and State levels, and we are entirely screwed.

              In short, people are simply too blind to see where we are at. We add TRILLIONS a year to the debt, have borderline negative interest rates, and have issued TRILLIONS of dollars to the supply – currently sequestered into a sub-strata of the economy, but its effects can only be delayed for so long. We are to reap what has been sown of one hundred years, and there’s no more smoke and mirrors. The Hardline will come on us. It’s not the same old, same old.

              1. +1 Zombie apocalypse? Nice post Toolkien. I suspect that when it implodes, in a marvelous bit of irony, it’s the Trumpistas who will be okay. They’ll figure out more quickly than “the BERN Militia” how to hunt and kill their own food to survive – or other people. Remember, those people (the Trumpistas) are the ones who actually own guns – and know how to use them.

                Nock once observed that the Pilgrims had such a hard time with the Native Americans because you can’t enslave people who are self-sufficient. They can just ignore you and go back to feeding themselves and doing what they want. People forget this simple fact at their our peril.

      2. Didn’t W say the same thing to Gore voters, who outnumbered his own voters?

        1. No, GWB actually took the opposite tack.

          “Our country has been through a long and trying period, with the outcome of the presidential election not finalised for longer than any of us could have ever imagined.

          Vice president Gore and I put our hearts and hopes into our campaigns; we both gave it our all. We shared similar emotions.

          I understand how difficult this moment must be for vice president Gore and his family. He has a distinguished record of service to our country as a congressman, a senator and as vice president.

          This evening I received a gracious call from the vice president. We agreed to meet early next week in Washington and we agreed to do our best to heal our country after this hard fought contest.

          We’ve had spirited disagreements, and in the end, we found constructive consensus. It is an experience I will always carry with me, an example I will always follow.

    3. And as for “[bringing] millions of disaffected people into the Democratic Process” that’s not necessarily a good thing. How often do we compare Democracy to two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner? How does bringing in a few more angry but usually apathetic wolves into the mix make things better?

      1. Good point, the angry ones make it harder for the Top. Men. to run things as they should be run. Require voters to pass intelligence tests before casting a ballot. It worked before in keeping the less intelligent out of the game.

        1. Good luck with that. Getting an ID card is considered too high of an intelligence barrier to prevent voting.

          1. I had to show ID to vote in Ohio.

    4. Whatever you think of Trump he has brought millions of disaffected people into the Democratic Process.

      You know, a less polite person than I might point out that you’re a fucking moron. He might point out that the whole goddamn big idea of the libertarian philosophy is to keep people out of “the democratic process”. He might add that “the democratic process” is a process for collective action and we need far less collective action, we need more people to mind their own goddamn business and quit fucking with other people who are trying to mind their own business. He might even say that the foundation of this philosophy is that the average person is a moron who has all he can do to take care of himself as best he can but it takes a special kind of moron, a fucking moron, to not realize he’s a moron and get to thinking that he’s not only superbly qualified to run his own life but that he’s qualified to run everybody else’s life, too. He might say we need far fewer fucking morons and far more regular morons.

      I, however, being a polite person will not call you a fucking moron.

      1. You are not polite. And you are absolutely a fucking moron Jerry. And you make up for it by being smug and delusional. Your entire rant amounts to “I don’t like Trump and hate his supporters”. Good for you. That however has nothing to do with the larger point.

        1. Maybe read it again only this time understand it?

          1. I can’t listen to the voices in your head.

            1. Even by internet standards that come back goes to 11 on the moronic scale.

              1. John has trouble reading because of the glare coming from his gun polish.

        2. Your entire rant amounts to “I don’t like Trump and hate his supporters”. Good for you. That however has nothing to do with the larger point.

          You don’t even try, John. It’s sad to watch.

      2. This was brilliant. Well stated.

      3. Once people are involved they can, potentially, be persuaded to other points of view. Not everyone starts political awareness as an L.

      4. I’m thinking that there are very few adherents of your ‘strong man’ view of libertarianism–a libertarianism that advocates apathy and disconnection over liberty and it’s defense.

        People who blather about how everyone else is a moron as if this smug denunciation raises them above that rabble should always be avoided–because they’re demonstrably so stupid that they are unaware that they are included in someone elses rabble.

        We are all ‘fucking morons’ to someone.

  18. Voters don’t decide the nominations; delegates do,

    The what’s the point? Why bother being part of the Republican Party? Why bother with the Primary?

    May as well not vote at all.

    1. The what’s the point? Why bother being part of the Republican Party? Why bother with the Primary?

      Now you’re getting it.

      1. Totalitarians will not cease bringing guns to your home and telling you what to do and how much money to give them because only ten people voted for them.

        That’s the point.

      2. Actually, I wouldn’t mind completely private ‘parties’ selecting candidates and then we just vote for them until someone gets 50% of the vote. Forget primaries altogether. Or switch to a parliamentary system of some kind.

    2. 40 percent of the party voting for Trump, or someone like him, is still effective in demonstrating displeasure with the party. But 40 percent isn’t enough to secure the nomination. Them’s the rules.

  19. It works just the way we have always said it does. “Your vote doesn’t count.”

    A vote for Trump is a vote to wake up the masses. (are my years in the CP showing? damn)

    1. I think that was a typo on your part. Didn’t you mean that a vote for Trump is a vote to wake up them asses?

      1. TRUMPSHAKER!

  20. Every one is commenting that there will be a disaster if Trump gets the presidency. I fail to see how much worse it can be compared to last 8 or 16 years or a 4-8 year Clinton presidency. Obama and Republican Congress have pretty much demonstrated Clinton can do as many executive orders and will have a supreme court majority to ensure she gets her way.

    1. This is my current POV. I don’t see Trump as any more of a disaster than Hillary, honestly. At least with Trump there’s the outside chance that his business sense might in some ways be applicable. Hillary will continue the awful Capitol District crap we’ve seen expand over the past 30-40 years — guaranteed.

  21. Thanks. The pundit class is overly focused on who competes best against Hillary, which misses what Harsanyi nails. Congress. Trump at the to of the ticket would cause one of the biggest Congressional defeats ever. Cruz would likely cause a smaller landslide loss.

    Both of those two appeal to goobers, the ones who piss and moan because Congressional Republicans made promises impossible to keep, over a Presidential veto … so they swallow GREATER bullshit from Trump and Cruz … both making promises to abuse Presidential power far more than Obama! (OMG)

    Cruz is the wacko who wanted to shut down the government over Obamacare … with no credible alternative!
    Now, even wackier, he now promises to sign a bill to repeal Obamacare … on his first day in office! The goobers screech in delight! “A PURE conservative would say ‘fuck you” and write his own goddamn laws! (burp)”
    While lying about the Constitution to promote the Christian Taliban..

    No wonder our government has been described as “the stupid party vs the liars party.”
    Look closely enough at today’s GOP wreckage. See the inevitable result of purists and fanatics run amok, combined with a lack of liberty-enhancing proposals, The True Believers.

    1. I can’t imagining most people in my district refusing to vote for Steve Stivers regardless of who the nominee or winner is. There’s really no plausible alternative.

      1. But, in your District, would he feel the need to renounce Trump?

        1. Nope.

          1. It’s already begun, but I’d guess any District with a large percentage of Dems and/or Independents.
            He is the most despised candidate nationally. If he gets subpoenaed for the Trump University scam … and Hillary gets subpoenaed on the same day …

    2. Who do you think Trump voters are going to want to send to Congress? Big government, immigrant lovin’, soft-on-terror Democrats? I don’t see the big loss. Some mainstream Republicans will stay home, some will vote for Hillary, but it’s not like the Democrats are going to benefit.

      1. As if partisans controlled elections.
        Trump would drive away most of the independents to the Dems.

  22. So much for the libertarian thought that BOTH parties are a pox on our house, and the sooner we are rid of them the better off we all will be. With the chance Get rid of one of these disasters instead we get from “libertarian” pages (supposed) the ringing of hands, and plans on how we can save it.

    I am sure of one thing. If that was the Democrat party on the verge of implosion, you all would be celebrating and just watching the ship go down. And you certainly wouldn’t be begging for the saving of the two party system, as Harsanyi just did.

    Which only proves the obvious…we are just commenting on an arm of team red.

    1. If you wanted the Democratic Party to be given more respect in these pages, then you shouldn’t have chosen such piss-poor candidates to represent it.

      “Waah, I keep voting for socialists, thieves, censors, and gun-grabbers, but those libertarians won’t let me forget it!”

      1. “Waah, I keep voting for socialists, thieves, censors, and gun-grabbers, but those libertarians won’t let me forget it!”

        Just stop voting Republican.

        1. That’s the best turnabout I’ve ever seen you make. Good job.

    2. There is quite a bit of support for Trump around here BECAUSE he is destroying the Rs.

      The thing I like most about Trump is his insincerity.

  23. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  24. “Look closely enough at today’s GOP wreckage. See the inevitable result of purists and fanatics run amok, combined with a lack of liberty-enhancing proposals, The True Believers”

    Exactly, if the GOP had a coherent core of values, it might me able to dump Trump. Instead it is a fractured mess of bible thumpers, war boners, xenophobes, and a few remaining crony capitalists who haven’t defected to the democrap party. There are of course the libertarians too, who the party insiders scarcely acknowledge.

    Trying to think who the democrat equivalent of Trump would be and the only person who comes to mind is Melissa Click, the (former) Mizzou prof. Lets say she ran for president and essentially said that white males should be expelled from the country and all safe space violations would be punishable by death, I still don’t think the dems would have the conversation about dumping her. Why? Because her views are much closer to the core of the dems than Trump’s are to the GOP, which doesn’t even have a core at all.

    1. ? if the GOP had a coherent core of values, it might me able to dump Trump. Instead it is a fractured mess ?

      No party can have a coherent set of principles unless their coalition does.

      Libertarians ceased to be a change-force decades ago, when the anti-gummint faction (authoritarians) finally out- bullied and out-shouted the pro-liberty faction (libertarian), lib lingo for government-haters versus liberty-lovers.

      The anti-gummint faction is driven mostly by hatred of government, rather than any love of liberty. Their hatred makes them negative, repeal as their only option. They hate liberty-lovers as … pussies who conspire with statists. They RIDICULE even the concept of seeking election with solutions, or even governing. If you ask how to ACHIEVE greater liberty, you get a blank stare. They don’t know, because they don’t, and they often ridicule you for asking. Their “society” is, of course a Caliphate

      Liberty-lovers, seeking liberty, gravitate toward ? liberty!, They seek to create, not tear down They seek solutions, and how to achieve them, which starts by getting elected. Where gummint-haters are driven by force (verbal abuse), liberty lovers are driven by persuasion, which engages age-old marketing principles

      Sell the positives, not the negatives.
      Sell the sizzle not the steak.
      Gummint-haters flunk even elementary salesmanship.

      1. Or they see government for what it is, the perpetual enemy of liberty.
        And think a third party, to be effective, has to ideologically pure and consistently advocate for its ideals.
        And running a Republican lite “pro liberty” candidate would only hurt the preferred 2-party-system candidate.

        1. Or they see government for what it is, the perpetual enemy of liberty.

          Less than 5% of the electorate.

          And think a third party, to be effective, has to ideologically pure and consistently advocate for its ideals.

          The GOP is killing itself on that, as a major party.

          And running a Republican lite “pro liberty” candidate would only hurt the preferred 2-party-system candidate

          If Gary Johnson has an actual platform, instead of the wacky libertarian slogans, he’d have the support of the Kochs and win.

  25. What a fucking stupid idea.

    This year is the presidential election Clyde-Piven could only dream of. No matter who wins, the former republic slides further down the shithole.

    1. Cloward=PIven…..excuse me

    2. Clyde Piven was a hell of a race car driver, though.

  26. I think more than likely they’ll go back to being the same angry, disaffected people that they were before.

    I think this is wrong, very wrong. IMHO, many people are underestimating the anger out there. To fuck over Trump, would only ratchet up the resentment. Sooner or later it is going to blow.

    1. I agree, though the GOP is going to lose with or without Trump. Kicking him out will only result in a third (or should I say turd) party run and the GOP will never reclaim the disaffected Trump supporters.

  27. Sure, the Republican Party isn’t a democracy and it crafts its own rules. It’s a strawman to think anyone is seriously arguing otherwise.

    The salient point is that if that private organization chooses to steal the nomination from Trump, then it is explicitly telling me it doesn’t care what I and a plurality of the voters think. Therefore, it must not want or need my vote. Therefore the Republican Party won’t get my vote.

    I’m just giving them what they’re asking for.

    1. Just like the nonsense done at the 2012 Convention, they hope they either:

      A. Have the memory of a goldfish, or

      B. Fear the other evil party so much they don’t mind being stomped on by their goons.

      I’m not actually sure which one is the one that describes their voters the best.

    2. Cloudbuster you are absolutely correct. The Republicans should explicitly tell Trump supporters, this is ridiculous, we don’t want your votes (if that’s how you are going to use them). Go away and take your votes with you, we are taking our party back.

      1. *shrug* Fine. Take your party back. You can have your Boehners and Grahams, McCains and Kasiches. Good luck with that.

        1. I’m not a Republican (anymore), but if I were, I would sure rather see the whole thing blown up than give away the keys to an anti-intellectual buffoon like Trump. “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but to lose his soul?”

  28. So much wrong with this article, but the basic premise is right: if no candidate wins a majority of the delegates prior to the convention, the Republican Party is under no obligation to nominate any of them for the general election, nor should it be.

    1. I agree with this, but it’s not clear in the article and it appears as if David Harsanyi is arguing for ignoring the results even if Trump gets enough delegates.

      He goes from this: “The key would be denying Trump the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the nomination.”

      To this:

      “Voters don’t decide the nominations; delegates do, preferably in smoke-filled rooms where rational decisions about the future of a party can be hashed out. The Republican Party is not a direct democracy. It crafts its own rules, and it can change them.”

      That being said, if the Republican elite don’t allow the delegates to vote for President, there will be a lot of pissed off Trump supporters. Logically, they would just have a run off election between Trump and Cruz (assuming they are first and second in delegate count).

      If they hate Trump and Cruz both so much that they want to deny both of them the nomination and try to hand pick an establishment Yes man. Then they are going to have a lot of pissed off Trump and pissed off Cruz supporters.

      Oh yeah, the Stupid Party. They’ll probably pick the last option.

  29. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??
    ========= http://www.ReportMax90.com

  30. 100% correct article. If an open horse-fucker (loves horses, fucks horses, talks about horses) gained enough votes, or almost, to get the GOP nomination, would those currently in power in the GOP have to throw up their hands and say, “welp, the people have spoken, I guess we’re the horse-fucker party now.”

    No. Someone with some balls and sense needs to find any means necessary to get the party back from the horse-fucker. ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Yes, ends justify the means on this one.

    1. I’d wager a party so dysfunctional that an open horse-fucker can get the nomination is a party that doesn’t have a lot left worth saving if a horse-fucker seemed like an attractive prospect to the voters.

      1. Well it does seem like that’s where we are, doesn’t it?

    2. “Vote for John Kasich! He doesn’t fuck horses!” is sure an attention-grabbing campaign slogan, but, somehow, I think there’s a ceiling to that appeal. Remember: people already said they like the open horse-fucker way, way better than him.

  31. What a total hoot! Trump, the creation via natural evolution of hard core hate- and emotion-driven conservative politics, has risen and now turns to bit its creator, the clueless hunchback Igor. Haul out the pitchforks and burning faggots ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term= )!! There’s some burnin’ to do.

    All the creative destructive energy that the bomb thrower Newt and his fellow renegades unleashed in the 1990’s is now coming home to roost. There is Karma – what went around is now coming back around.

    As on commentator put it, “Trump read the memo.” In his campaign, Trump used all the language that Newt urged his fellow insurgents to use, “failure, pathetic, disgrace, and incompetent,”: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2…..ump-video/

    This just cannot get any better. Or, can it? Can’t wait for the convention!

  32. Excellent article. If the GOP wants to have any meaningful future, telling the idiots and dead-enders who support Trump where to get off is a requirement. Not optional.

    1. I don’t think “meaningful future” means what you think it means.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.