Ted Cruz

Cruz Is the Latest Republican to Endorse a Man He Thinks Is Unfit to Be President

Trump's supporters have called him a "ridiculous" showman, a "con artist," "a pathological liar," and "a cancer on conservatism."

|

CPAC

Ted Cruz, who conspicuously refrained from endorsing Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention in July, has decided that the Republican nominee, awful as he might be, is still preferable to Hillary Clinton. Here is how the Texas senator explained his long-delayed endorsement on Friday:

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I've made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable.

Specifically, Cruz argues that Trump is better than Clinton in six areas: Supreme Court appointments, Obamacare, energy, immigration, national security, and Internet freedom. Yet in an interview on Saturday in Austin, Cruz declined to say whether Trump is "fit to be president." Nor did he retract any part of the critique he offered when he dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination:

I'm going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump. This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies, practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying….Whatever he does, he accuses everybody else of doing. The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist—a narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen. Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and says, "Dude, what's your problem?" Everything in Donald's world is about Donald….The man is utterly amoral. Morality does not exist for him….Donald is a bully….Donald is cynically exploiting that anger [at the political establishment], and he is lying to his supporters. Donald will betray his supporters on every issue.

If Trump is "a pathological liar" who "will betray his supporters on every issue," you might wonder, what possible basis does Cruz have to believe that Trump will be better than Clinton (as Cruz sees it) on the six issues he mentions? And that's leaving aside "fidelity to the rule of law," which Cruz says "has never been more important." Surely there is no reason to think Trump, an authoritarian and constitutional ignoramous who openly admires dictators, will be any better than Clinton in that respect. Possibly Cruz recognizes that, which is why he says "if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties."

Cruz is just the latest former Republican presidential candidate to swallow his pride and his principles by endorsing a nominee he was condemning as manifestly unfit for the presidency less than a year before. Here are a few other notable conversions.

Office of the Governor

Chris Christie then: "You do not need to be banning Muslims from the country….In my view, that's a ridiculous position and one that won't even be productive. [It's] the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they're talking about….Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it is not the kind of leadership that will truly change America….I just don't think that he's suited to be president of the United States. I don't think his temperament is suited for that and I don't think his experience is."

Chris Christie now: "I am proud to be here to endorse Donald Trump for president of the United States….I'm happy to be on the Trump team, and I look forward to working with him….He's a real talent."

Office of the Governor

Rick Perry then: "He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued. Let no one be mistaken: Donald Trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded. It cannot be pacified or ignored, for it will destroy a set of principles that has lifted more people out of poverty than any force in the history of the civilized world—the cause of conservatism."

Rick Perry now: "I believe in the process, and the process has said Donald Trump will be our nominee, and I'm going to support him and help him and do what I can….He is one of the most talented people who has ever run for the president I have ever seen."

RNC video

Marco Rubio then: "We're on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist….This boiling point that we have now reached has been fed largely by the fact that we have a frontrunner in my party who has fed into language that basically justifies physically assaulting people who disagree with you….[Trump is] the most vulgar person ever to aspire to the presidency….I believe Donald Trump as our nominee is going to shatter and fracture the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

Marco Rubio now: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is committed to cut taxes, curb spending, and get our national debt under control. Unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump takes seriously the threats from Islamic radicals and is committed to rebuilding our military. And unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he is committed to appointing constitutionalist judges who will respect the proper role of the judiciary."

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

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. If Trump is “a pathological liar” who “will betray his supporters on every issue,” you might wonder, what possible basis does Cruz have to believe that Trump will be better than Clinton (as Cruz sees it) on the six issues he mentions?

    Because, to whatever degree a pathological liar like Reason’s preferred candidate, Hillary, is telling the truth, she is promising to be horrible on every issue?

    1. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $15000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business… http://goo.gl/zVWhVg

    2. “if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.”

      Good luck with that.

    3. My take on his position is Clinton is promising to do mostly abhorrent things and given her record likely will carry through with that. Trump is promising to do some good things and even if he’s a liar there’s some chance he might actually do them. A chance of something not bad or even good happening is better than a certainty lots of bad things will happen.

  2. Was wondering when Sullum was going to take his turn.

  3. You know who else was unfit to be leader of his country…

    1. Mad King Ludwig?

    2. Angela Merkel?

    3. George Washington? John Adams? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? James Monroe? John Quincy Adams? Andrew Jackson? Martin Van Buren? William Henry Harrison? John Tyler? James K Polk? Zachary Taylor? Millard Fillmore? Franklin Pierce? James Buchanan? Abraham Lincoln?…

      Fuck it, there are too many.

      1. Eh, Washington was okay, i guess…

        1. I like Madison, though more for his ideas than his actions. And because he was a midget like me.

          1. Did Madison get a smaller podium at his debates too because of it?

    4. Admiral Ackbar?

    5. Obama

        1. FFS. Cruz is simply a realist who evolved. GOPers are neanderthals by nature and thus have much more genetic room to evolve.

    6. Cheeriobed, King of Munchkinland

  4. Between Rubio/Cruz/Sanders, how much money was spent telling voters that their opponent was Satan, only to endorse them a couple of months later?

    1. Don’t forget that fat guy in New Jersey

      1. Need to narrow that down some.

        1. I think he meant Tony Soprano.

          He’s so fat, his blood type is ragu.

  5. No one actually thought the Republicans would be principled about this did they?

    Especially after Hillary was the Dem nominee. I mean, most of them are basically saying “Trump is a piece of shit, but at least he ain’t Hillary.”

    1. Hey, I am going into the voting booth in November and am going to say literally out loud “Trump is a piece of shit, but at least he ain’t Hiillary.” And then punch the card for Trump.

      I feel like Cruz does. Trump is a liar, and will betray a number of supporters’ principles. But, at the end of the day, I have just come to the conclusion that I can live with Trump as President. MUCH, MUCH more than Hillary. And Gay Jay not only can’t win, but frankly I think he is absolute doofus as far as running a campaign. I would be embarrassed to say I voted for him at this point.

      Having said all that, I have no pretensions that my 1 vote in a country of 315 million people matters 1 whit.

      1. I would have considered voting for Cruz because, all other flaws aside, I thought we could rely on him to put up decent SCOTUS picks. Trump, who knows? He’s put out some lists that look solid, but given his complete lack of record on such matters, there’s no way to trust him here. Maybe he’s serious about appointing judges like that; maybe he doesn’t give a shit and views this as a bone he’s throwing to conservatives; maybe he’s just throwing out names to appease the conservative wing but plans to nominate others? There’s no way to know.

        1. And Cruz would win handily against Clinton. Maybe not as easily as Rubio would have, but he’d consistently be up a couple points on the charmless old biddy.

        2. When Rand left the race I was a supporter of Cruz. I wouldn’t want him on by HOA or city counsel (because he is such a socon), but as President, I think he is much more of a constitutionalist than any of the others that were left.
          And I agree, that with Trump who knows? But with Hillary we know EXACTLY what we are getting. And I don’t like it. Hillary is about as bad as it gets. Trump is still pretty shitty. But I decided I can tolerate pretty shitty to avoid Cankles level of ultimate shit.

        3. Trump, who knows?

          this could well be a bumper sticker re: Trump, but no one asks about Hillary. Because everyone knows. And not even Team Blue can provide one affirmative reason on her behalf.

          1. WDATPDIM vs What have you got to lose?

    2. Most of everyone voting for Trump is saying that. Hillary is campaigning harder for Trump than Trump.

  6. Politicians will jump in front of any parade, as long as they think it will benefit them, somehow?

    I haz a surprise.

  7. “Specifically, Cruz argues that Trump is better than Clinton in six areas: Supreme Court appointments, Obamacare, energy, immigration, national security, and Internet freedom.”

    I follow Cruz’s logic there–if by “Supreme Court appointments”, he also means gun rights.

    To me, there are four good reasons to vote for Trump:

    1) Trump probably won’t pick Supreme Court nominees specifically because they support gun rights, but I expect Hillary will pick Supreme Court nominees specifically because they’re against gun rights.

    2) When ObamaCare crashes and burns, Hillary will do everything in her power to push for single-payer–and she may have Democrat control of the Senate. Donald Trump will not push for single-payer.

    3) If you live in a deep blue state like California, voting for someone like Gary Johnson doesn’t really get your middle finger up high enough in the air to where the authoritarian socialists that run Sacramento can see it. And it’s important that they see it.

    1. I thought Hillary’s litmust test for SCOTUS was repealing free speech Citizens United. Enh, it’s hard to keep her desired power grabs straight anymore.

      1. Well, whatever her prime directive is, it isn’t gonna be good.

        1. She can’t be bargained with. She can’t be reasoned with. She doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And she absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead! Or broke.

          1. She knows something about being dead broke.

          2. That’s what Dick Morris used to say about Hillary.

            He said that Bill Clinton always needed reassurance.

            Are you sure we’re doing the right thing?

            He said that Hillary would get furious if anybody questioned her.

      2. I thought Hillary’s litmust test for SCOTUS was repealing free speech Citizens United. Enh, it’s hard to keep her desired power grabs straight anymore.

        That is correct and cannot be emphasized enough: Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for the Supreme Court is whether or not they supporting making it illegal to criticize her.

    2. What makes you confident, given his previous praise of it, that Trump wouldn’t support single payer? Sincerely curious.

      1. I’m not sure Trump won’t accept single payer if push comes to shove.

        I’m sure Hillary will actively push for single payer.

        You see the difference?

        One thug might get mad and hit me.

        The other one’s coming for the express purpose of kicking my ass.

        1. I can imagine Trump pulling a Frank Underwood and starting some massive social program with his name on it just to flatter his own ego. I bet he’s jealous of Obama for having ‘Obamacare.’

          1. Everyone running for president wants to be FDR. They would all pull exactly that if they could get away with it.

          2. ‘Trumpcare’ does not have a nice ring to it.

          3. Again, Hillary is dedicated to single payer.

            There’s no uncertainty about it.

            If Hillary wins the White House and the Democrats take control of the Senate, single payer is happening.

            The risk of Trump maybe doing something isn’t even comparable.

            ‘Trump might come at me with a knife someday, so I might as well just let Hillary chop my legs off’ does not compute.

            1. I’d say you’re overstating the degrees of difference in the probability. I view it all as fairly contextual, with Hillary’s personal support for single payer a bit higher than Trumps. Given the few shades of difference it’s not enough to entice me to cast a vote for the Cheeto’d one.

              1. No, it isn’t a bit higher.

                Hillary has been consistently advocating and fighting for single payer since 1992.

    3. When ObamaCare crashes and burns, Hillary will do everything in her power to push for single-payer–and she may have Democrat control of the Senate. Donald Trump will not push for single-payer.

      Can you be sure about this? Trump’s said nothing but supportive words about Social Security and Medicare — maybe because his very-loyal base actually relies upon those programs but more likely he does not actually spend any time thinking about them beyond being a vague “good” that his daughter likes.

      His ObamaCare position on his website is standard Republican boilerplate that’s been spouted for seven years. And I doubt he could talk about any of the seven points his position mentions in any sort of detail (or even recall what more than three of them are).

      Trump is running as an unabashed populist, not a small-government conservative. For that reason, I could conceivably see him supporting a “Medicare-for-all” program.

      1. “Can you be sure about this? Trump’s said nothing but supportive words about Social Security and Medicare”

        Because he doesn’t criticize the third rail of politics in an election campaign, that means he’ll go single payer when ObamaCare comes crashing down?

        Does not compute.

    4. Did you study math with Rick Perry?

      1. 4) is now some thirty posts below where it was originally posted. Check the time signatures.

        Do you have the attention span of a gnat?

  8. Even Ted Cruz is now on the Trump Train.

    So, tell me again how, if Donald is elected, that the Republicans in Congress will grow a spine and resist everything that he does.

    They won’t. They will roll over and give Donald 99% of what he wants.

    1. It would be the other way around. Trump is light on policy prescriptions; everything he promotes is going to be the work of insiders, which means Congressional Republicans would get a bigger say on Donald’s policy proposals than Donald would. And I don’t think Donald cares one way or the other, as long as he gets to preen and take credit for the successes and blame Congress for the failures.

    2. They will roll over and give Donald 99% of what he wants.

      Some will, but most will do a lot of ‘virtue signaling’ by criticizing and voting against Trump’s policies. They still want to be invited to those cocktail parties and get along with their asshole neighbors.

      1. I dunno at this point. They also want to be liked by their leader, sometimes more than by their neighbors.

  9. 4) Probably the best reason of all–Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. If Trump were a self-described communist, if Trump were a self-described Nazi or a member of the Klan, that would be one thing. He’s not. And short of that, when corruption and treason are an issue like they are with Hillary, they’re the only issue that matters.

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..arms-deals

    If someone can sell out the office of Secretary of State to foreign governments, some of whom may even be our enemies, and then become President–and the voters won’t hold that person responsible, but will actually vote that person into the White House? Then I am finished with any pretense of legitimacy.

  10. “If Trump is “a pathological liar” who “will betray his supporters on every issue,” you might wonder, what possible basis does Cruz have to believe that Trump will be better than Clinton (as Cruz sees it) on the six issues he mentions?”

    This doesn’t seem that hard, Trump even betraying his supporters still won’t make be worse than Hillary doing what she’s said. Or, maybe, Cruz was just being hyperbolic towards a political rival.

    1. Literally, I think the only argument in Trump’s favor is that he doesn’t have a *documented* history of *government* corruption, the way Hillary does.

      Donald has done his own corrupt things (bribing politicians), but it wasn’t as a politician himself.

      That’s pretty much it.

      1. He doesn’t a history of War making the way Hillary does either.

        1. Neither does anyone else who hasn’t held a high level Federal government position.

          1. True. Gore had more of a record as a warmonger than GWB as of 2000, just by virtue of the offices they had held.

          2. “Neither does anyone else who hasn’t held a high level Federal government position.”

            That’s why we like the ‘unqualified’ just by default! Her enthusiasm only makes it easier here though.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    2. Or, maybe, Cruz was just being hyperbolic towards a political rival.

      But… but… Cruz said one thing and then literally said something different!!

      1. No other politician has ever done that before!
        I mean, it’s not like the Obamas said things bad about Hillary when they were running against her, but now say completely opposite things!

  11. I don’t think ‘unqualified’ means what anti-Trumpers want us to think it means.

    1. Yes yes we know. According to the Constitution’s requirements, even Kim Kardashian is qualified to be president. But no sane person should vote for her.

      1. Over the other two options on the stage tonite, I’d consider it.

        1. If she accepts Nicki Minaj as her running mate and her campaign posters are the two of them engaged in radical exploratory dental work using their tongues, she’d have my vote.

          1. Unfortunately KK comes with her husband. You don’t want him putting himself in front of a camera every chance he gets, I mean more so than already, do you?

            1. These are hard times, Rhywun. We must all make sacrifices.

            2. First hobbit president and first gay fish vp.

  12. Fit?

    Whether Mr. Trump is fit to be President of these United States of America remains a matter open to debate. Whether Mrs. Clinton is fit, if the rumors of her being afflicted with Parkinson’s Disease are true, is not open to debate.

    Is she, or isn’t she? Yes or no?

    See “Parkinson’s, Mrs. Clinton?” under …
    http://nationonfire.com/catego…..liticians/ .

    1. As far as I can tell the evidence for PD is slim. We do know that she has fallen and whacked her head pretty good which can have severe consequences, especially for older people. The video of her eyes not being synchronous convinced me that there’s almost certainly something going on neurologically (unless it was doctored of course).

      1. Well the right-wing anti-Clinton internet machine has never made anything up out of thin air before, so it’s got to be legit.

        1. I realize that nothing is true for you until the Washington Post blesses it, but events actually happen before they get reported.

          Somebody should tell Obama.

    2. See, I think you’ve got your tactic wrong here. The best reason I can think of to vote for Clinton is the chance that you’d get President Tim Kaine. The sicker she is, the better a choice voting for the Democratic ticket is.

      Similarly, if someone wanted to convince me to vote Republican, talking up how Donald Trump is likely to die in January of 2017 and give us President Mike Pence would be the ideal tactic.

    3. I don’t see how it’s up for debate whether Trump is fit to be president unless you’ve been comatose since the 90s.

  13. There is one thing re: Trump that continues to puzzle me. The Left (and in fact most of the Reason staff) continue to pound Trump for having said nice things about Putin. 2 things about this:
    1) Clinton has direct ties to Russian Uranium suppliers through her foundation while she was SoS, but apparently that is ok (even though Putin is almost as bad as Trump);

    2) I admit that Putin is not exactly Thomas Jefferson. But, FFS he isn’t Stalin either. He is, at worst, an old-school authoritarian who I think honestly believes what he does is in the best interest of his country. There are a number of areas where we are at odds, but there are a number of areas where we could find common ground. Not in the “Hillary reset switch” mode, but from a position of strength. There is no reason that Russia has to be an enemy like the Soviet Union was. There are plenty of countries in which we wish conditions were a bit better but we still work with. Hell, from a freedom stand point, I would rather live in Russia than in Turkey, and they are a member of NATO.

    1. Neither Russia nor Turkey was ever touched by the Enlightenment. They both have an Asian attitude towards the worth of the individual, i.e. the only value that an individual has is membership in a group. Neither could ever be an ally of the US until the US fully adopts anti-individualism which is occurring slowly, but surely.

    2. Putin is a pretty awful thug. He came to power in a wave of bombings that were killing junior officers and their families that stopped as soon as he came into office – which I suspect he organized. It’s an open secret that he has ordered opponents and inconvenient journalists assassinated.

      He is a fascist.

      I can understand disliking someone saying nice things about the thug. But, where was the outrage when Obama feted the Saudi monarch, who has authorized the beheading of women convicted of witchcraft? Where is the outrage for FDR’s love for Stalin?

      There seems to be selective outrage at work here.

      1. Putin sucks. But so do a lot of other leaders in the world as you point out. It would be nice, however, if people would stop exaggerating the threat he actually poses and the stupidity of needlessly antagonizing Russia.

        The same people who thought it was a good idea to expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders now have the nerve to call Trump dangerous and irresponsible. Since the fall of the iron curtain, the US decided it was a good idea to bomb Serbia over Russia’s objection and do everything we could to encircle and antagonize Russia. And now we are fucking shocked Russia is run by a paranoid and dangerous nationalist. What the fuck did these clowns think was going to happen? Maybe the missed it but Russia went into World War I over the Serbs. They feel a real duty to be the great protector of the world’s Slavs. So bombing Serbia was of course going to piss them off. They have also been on the ass end of one invasion after another going back to the Mongols and have no real natural barriers to prevent invasions. Russian foreign policy since the time of Peter the Great has been driven by the desire to create a buffer zone with Europe and the other great powers to prevent invasion. And somehow the top men in our government thought expanding NATO east of Poland and cozying up to Georgia and Ukraine was a good idea.

        1. I recall that bombing of Serbia was a big deal in Russia in the last ’90s. Quite a few of my pro-Western, pro-American friends in Moscow were outraged. I remember that it wasn’t possible to find any justification for what Clinton did.

          1. It was. And Clinton did it without the approval of Congress or the UNSC. Did it for the purpose of preventing a genocide that turned out not to have been occurring. And basically accomplished nothing other than empowering the Kosovar Mafia.

            It was more than a bit rich to hear liberals during the 00s talk about Bush’s “illegal wars” that were started based on a lie. If there is one example of a war that was illegal, pointless and based on a lie, it is Clinton’s war against Serbia.

  14. Choosing between Hillary and Trump is like choosing between Mao and Stalin and Hitler. You could hold your nose and vote for Hitler, who killed fewer people than Mao and Stalin. Or you could decide you’re going to the camps regardless, so may as well vote for someone else.

  15. Wow! You’d think that Republicans are a bunch of pragmatic cowards! Say it ain’t so!

    Is anyone actually surprised that the party of cowardice and compromise is supporting one of the worst pieces of human debris to ever run for president?

    1. Is anyone actually surprised that the party of collectivism and victimism is supporting an even worse piece of human debris to ever run for president?

      1. I’m not surprised by anything that either party does any more.

  16. It would be nice if Libertarians of all people would develop some perspective on politics and the real power and influence of individual politicians. Trump is no more the Orange Satan that the staff at reason thinks he is than Obama was the chocolate Jesus that his supporters thought he was. I am left to wonder why the reason staff are Libertarians at all if they have this much faith in the power of politicians to do good or bad. They are in the end merely people and in almost every case neither as good or as bad as their admirers and critics claim and almost never as influential as we like to pretend they are. In short, can reason just calm the fuck down? Just a little?

    The funny thing about reason’s coverage of Trump is not only how over the top and emotional it is, it is how internally inconsistent it is. On the one hand Trump is a con man sure to sell out his right wing supporters. On the other hand, Trump is a right wing authoritarian sure to follow though to the Nth degree on every authoritarian thing he has ever said. How he would mange to be both of those things is never considered.

    They would do well to calm the fuck down, start thinking a bit and stop pulling out half assed clinical slanders like “pathological liar”. Trump is not a pathological liar. If he were, his kids and everyone close to him would not have anything good to say about him and they clearly do. Why isn’t enough just to say he is wrong and would make a bad President?

    1. I am left to wonder why the reason staff are Libertarians at all if they have this much faith in the power of politicians to do good or bad.

      This, I attribute to the erosion of any realistic check on executive power over the past century or so, accelerated even more so over our last couple presidents.

      1. There are still a lot of realistic checks. Even Obama, who had the total coverage of the media and his own party, didn’t do everything he wanted. Beyond that, Trump commands little loyalty from his own party and is universally loathed by the media. If your concern is unchecked executive power, Trump is who you want in the office because he will have more enemies in Washington on both sides than any President in a long time.

        How reason can’t figure that out and still believes Trump is the same threat that Hillary, a woman who would command total loyalty from the media and her own party and already has gotten away with multiple felonies is beyond me. They really have lost their minds over Trump. I don’t mean they should support him. I mean their objections to him are completely irrational and over the top.

    2. The funny thing about reason’s coverage of Trump is not only how over the top and emotional it is, it is how internally inconsistent it is.

      John learns that the Reason writers are really hacks at heart. Quaint.

      1. I didn’t call them hacks. I said they were emotional and irrational about this issue. If you think their criticisms are consistent and can somehow square the charge of Trump being a secret liberal who is going to sell out his right wing supporters with him being a right wing authoritarian, do tell.

        1. I am agreeing with you, dear John. I find it surprising that you expect Reason writers to be consistent or logical, especially when it comes to a crude person with whom they would not normally associate. They are elitists.

          1. Sorry I missed that T.

          2. it’s expected in part to all their moral preening about how “we’re not like either of the Teams” which is followed by being exactly like the Teams, just in a different shade.

    3. Why isn’t enough just to say he is wrong and would make a bad President?

      Crimethought.

      1. That’d be a pretty short article and I assume they have to make a word quota.

    4. “It would be nice if Libertarians of all people would develop some perspective on politics and the real power and influence of individual politicians.”

      Of course. The four thousand soldiers who died in a stupid and senseless “War Against Terror” would probably have died anyway right? How about the $70,000 debt that every newborn American is saddled with?

      Politicians have a spectacular ability to destroy human lives so it does make a difference who gets into office.

      “How he would mange to be both of those things is never considered.”

      Same way that he can be a business “success” and go bankrupt four times. Trump is a narcissistic authoritarian who will gleefully screw anyone who gets in his way. He’s Hillary with a penis.

      1. Of course. The four thousand soldiers who died in a stupid and senseless “War Against Terror” would probably have died anyway right? How about the $70,000 debt that every newborn American is saddled with?

        And those things are totally the result of one person and not the collective decision of our government or anything. Nope. it is all about the power of the big top man. We are not talking about the power of government in general. We are talking about the power of one man in that government.

        Same way that he can be a business “success” and go bankrupt four times. Trump is a narcissistic authoritarian who will gleefully screw anyone who gets in his way. He’s Hillary with a penis.

        Anyone who points to his bankruptcies as some kind of defacto proof of Trump being a bad business man is either lying or a complete idiot who knows nothing about how businesses work. Business go bankrupt. Plenty of great and successful business people have had business that failed. Fail is what most businesses do. The market is not some sort of judgment from God dealing out vengeance and justice on the deserving. If you don’t understand that, you don’t’ understand markets or businesses.

        You are just irrational about this subject. That is your choice but understand there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously about it.

      2. He’s Hillary with a penis.

        Huma disagrees.

      3. Same way that he can be a business “success” and go bankrupt four times. Trump is a narcissistic authoritarian who will gleefully screw anyone who gets in his way. He’s Hillary with a penis.

        Make Hillary president and she’ll have the biggest penis this country has ever been screwed with.

    5. This is indeed something that libertarians and most everyone else needs to be reminded of from time to time. The president can’t just do whatever he wants. Things have moved in that direction in recent administrations, but the p[resident is still far from being a dictator. I’m sure I wouldn’t like much of what he would do, but that’s going to be the case no matter who gets elected.

      Even if Trump were as awful as his more deranged critics think, he wouldn’t be able to do most of the crazy things that people think he wants to do. If he wins, he will have lots of resistance from congress and the press. And would have a decent chance of being a one-termer. Those are the upsides of Trump winning to me.

      1. One of the reasons why central planners always fail is that even a dedicated group of people cannot control events like they think they can. That not only means central planning efforts are doomed to always fail, it also means that the danger of one politician is a lot less than we often like to think. Top man cannot control events for good or bad.

        1. And why conspiracy theories are almost always ridiculous nonsense. No individual or small group really has the power, or has their shit together enough to be that effective and maintain secrecy.

          I wish I could get my friends who have themselves convinced that Trump is literally Hitler to hear this. Even if he were (which is ridiculous), this isn’t 1930s Germany.

      2. There’s the counterargument that congress would let Hillary get away with less than Trump, him being I. Their team, thereby better limiting the damage.

        One could argue that the Supreme Court would check Trump better than Clinton (since at least 4 are already on her side) but I’m not sure they matter much any more now that Obama has shown you can just steamroll right over them.

  17. saw this on Drudge:

    Hillary’s Instantaneous Health Morph ? Unanticipated Pool Reporter Surprises Secretary Clinton?

    Two aspects to notice. #1) How deliberate Clinton is about the steps; this indicates yet another example of how her lower visual acuity field is tenuous. #2) How Hillary did not expect to see the reporter, Liz Kreutz, and how her entire demeanor morphs instantly.

    1. Is it just that I’m confused about this, or do most people not wear a huge winter coat in September in 70 degree weather?

    2. Is that how you interpret that video, because it looks like a normal healthy human being walking down a flight of stairs to me.

  18. Hillary’s lead in PA and CO has just evaporated. I have to believe that if the polls are this close on election day, Trump has a big advantage. The reason I believe that is that a lot of people are probably scared to admit they will vote for Trump, even on the phone, since most people obviously do not want a horde of shreeking imbeciles to show up at their house throwing rocks at their windows.

    1. I think you are right. Also, every poll I have seen that has them tied or close, has a partisan breakdown of Dem +10 or around there. The electorate in 2012 was only Dem +6. When you consider the problems Hillary is having motivating the black and youth vote, I find it hard to believe that she will even get a Dem +6 turnout again much less a Dem +10. Can you? Am I missing something here?

      I wonder she is further behind than the media is letting on and they are doing Dem weighted polls to make it appear a tie so that Democrats won’t see the election as lost and either not show up or vote for Stein figuring it doesn’t matter.

      1. I think the GOP will have higher turnout, it’s the independents that will decide this election. And I think a large percentage of them do not like either candidate. Meaning that a large number of them will stay home. Advantage = GOP. If Hillary loses PA and CO and possibly if she loses either, she’s toast.

        1. Independents are notorious for not showing up. Romney targeted independents and ended up winning them by something like 14 points. It didn’t save him because not enough independents showed up to vote. Obama in contrast targeted his base and concentrated on motivating his base to show up. Since partisans are easier to motivate, Obama’s motivated base overwhelmed Romney’s advantage among independents.

          It is hard to believe many independents are going to show up in a year where neither nominee is well liked. If Romney, a guy who was at least seen as honest and generally not hated, couldn’t motivate independents to turn out, hard to see how Hillary or Trump will.

          What Trump is doing that Romney didn’t do, is winning the support of a decent number of Democrats. There is no secret majority of conservatives. The only way a Republican can win nationally is to win some chunk of democratic voters.

      2. Democrats have not done well in an election that didn’t have Barry’s name on the ballot since 2006. Millenials see straight through her and don’t support her, depending on their inclinations, she is a lying crook, a war-monger, or a political opportunist not sufficiently onboard with the free shit brigade. Blacks aren’t going to show up in anywhere close to the same numbers for her as they did for Barry. The Dems already see that, as Obama has declared that it will be a personal insult to him if they don’t go out and vote for Hillary.

        Meanwhile, blue collar voters, especially in states like PA, OH, WV, and MI are enthusiastic about Trump. These people did not show up last election because…well, Romney.

        1. Here is the thing about Trump and Hillary. Every person that has ever been elected President in my lifetime has had a significant base of support of people who absolutely loved them and wanted them to be President. No matter how close the election was, the winner always had a core group of people who were true believers.

          Trump as you point out has that. No matter how much the media and the Progressives and college educated whites may hate him, there are a large number of people who believe in him. Hillary in contrast doesn’t have that. Sure, she has a few true believers, every candidate does. She does not have anything like the number of true believers that Trump or any winning candidate I have ever seen has had.

          Maybe she will still win in spite of that. If she does, she will be the first. I am inclined to think that her lack of core support and general distaste her own party’s voters have for her is going to do her in. It is not that hey will vote Trump, it is that they won’t vote at all.

    2. I have to agree with you here. In this election cycle, the polls have tended to understate the support of the so-called “upstart” candidates (Bernie, Trump, etc.) while overstating that of the establishment. There were a number of surprises during the primaries, the biggest of them being Hillary’s loss in Michigan, despite polls just before the election showing her up by 20 points.

      If polls are this close in late October, stock up on popcorn, because the MSM meltdown is going to be YUUUUGE

      1. I don’t understand why any libertarian would want Hillary to win. Sure, Trump sucks, but Hillary is worse and she’s already proven just how bad she will be.

        But the reason I hope Hillary loses is that the pants shitting on the left will be derptastical, the lulz will be epic.

        1. I don’t either. Trump is a shit-sandwich with extra shit-sauce, but Hillary has a proven track record of being evil, corrupt, and incompetent.

        2. Agreed – I can’t bring myself to vote Trump myself, but it does really seem clear to me that Clinton is actively hostile to the idea of liberty for anyone, as opposed to Trump who just wants to stick it to whoever he thinks are “the bad people”.

    3. The reason I believe that is that a lot of people are probably scared to admit they will vote for Trump, even on the phone, since most people obviously do not want a horde of shreeking imbeciles to show up at their house throwing rocks at their windows.

      I don’t know, I seem to remember a lot of similar theories in 2012 to explain why Romney wasn’t doing better in polls. E.g., they “don’t want to admit to not supporting Black Jesus because they don’t want people to think they’re racists.”

      Although it’s possible that there is a real effect here with Trump. The whole “everyone who supports Trump is a an EVUL racist, misogynist, homophobe bigot” trope is a lot worse this time than it was with Romney in ’12.

    4. Every terrorist attack helps Trump a little more, so that may help explain it. The dems could have easily counteracted that by taking a harder rhetorical stance on Islamic terrorism instead of equivocating on islamophobia. Instead they may end up sacrificing an election to appease 1% of the electorate that would vote for them anyway.

  19. I am voting for Johnson and hoping for Trump.

  20. I was hoping he wasn’t bluffing. He could have demonstrated that he actually does have some integrity. Instead, he demonstrated that he can be another drone when he needs to be one.

    If Cruz had libertarian sensibilities, he could be a hero. The man is wickedly intelligent and tenacious. Instead, he is antithetical to libertarian values, and now he’s chosen political convenience over polishing his brass balls. That’s a shame.

    1. Pretty sure he signed that GOP pledge to vote for the nominee.

      1. Here’s what a principled individual would have said about his pledge to support the nominee.

        “My oath to defend the Constitution takes precedence over any private pledge I might make. At the time that I made the pledge I had every reason to believe that my party would never nominate someone who is openly hostile to the Constitution of the United States. The facts upon which I based my pledge have changed dramatically. I will not support any candidate who views the Bill of Rights as negotiable. I therefore will never support Donald Trump for any office of any kind.”

        1. so a pledge becomes a tool of expedience? There is the option of not taking a pledge at all, and saying what you posted from the get-go. Trump didn’t sneak of on Cruz or anyone else. That the nomination shocked him is a good reason for why blind pledges are not a great idea, far more so than reneging on one.

          1. Bob Meyer advises others to speak with forked tongue.

          2. Yep. His mistake wasn’t in following the pledge, it’s in making it to start with.

    2. Cruz only pretended to be libertarian for long enough to get Rand’s libertarian votes. He didn’t fool me, but a lot of people were fooled. As soon as Rand was out, he went full on statist.

    3. Some people can resist the authoritarian will to power ethos of Washington. Cruz isn’t one of them. When faced with a loss of influence Cruz took a knee before the throne.

      1. Cruz took a knee before the throne.

        These euphemisms, man…

      2. Jen Bush didn’t bend the knee. Maybe he should win the kingsmoot

    4. Nonsense.
      A position of high integrity could be stated as follows.

      “At the convention I expressed my personal belief that the most critical path forward for all Americans is to ‘vote your consience’. I still firmly believe that, however the facts have changed since then. We have seen third party candidates fall to the side, with little realistic hope of success. We have seen the nominee of the Democrats embroiled in scandals and pay-to-play corruption accusations that go leaps beyond accepted behavior. This same nominee is beset by numerous health issues and refuses to explain to the voters how and why these issues are not impactful for her successful stint in the nations most powerful elected office. Donald Trump and I disagree both professionally and personally on a great many things. Since the convention he has shown some moderation, and while there is a large chasm between our viewpoints, I do believe that there is some hope of common ground in the future. for these reasons, my conscience firmer points to Donald Trump as the only viable candidate for the office of POTUS. God help us all”

      It’s really not that difficult.

  21. With Trump you get at most 8 years of assholery. With Hillary you get 30-40 years of socialism due to the SCOTUS appointments.

    You choose.

    1. Hillary won’t make it 4 years, she’s too sick. She’ll either croak or her health will be so bad that she cannot appear in public. If the latter happens, the media will cover it up for a few months, but it will finally leak out and the media will look even worse than they do now. Then we’ll have Goober Kaine for a while.

      Trump won’t make it a 2nd term. Either he’ll lose the GOP primaries or the Dems will finally pull their heads out and find a decent candidate.

      1. Hillary doesn’t have to make it four years, just long enough for a couple of SCOTUS picks and then, her influence spans a generation. Meanwhile, who is this ‘decent’ Dem candidate? Even a guy seen as fitting that mold, Jim Webb, says Hillary is nothing but the status quo and that he can’t see voting for her. So, who then: Warren? more Bernie? The party is so far left that even liberals like Alan Dershowitz are embarrassed by it.

      2. If Hillary kicks it before November 8, I’ll consider voting for her. Hillary’s corpse would be far and away the least dangerous candidate on the ballot.

      3. I would be shocked if Hillary lived out her term. And even if she does, I don’t think she even tries to run for re-election. The woman is dying.

      4. Either he’ll lose the GOP primaries or the Dems will finally pull their heads out and find a decent candidate.

        I think it’s more likely he gets primaried than the Dems find a decent candidate*. All they managed to put up this year was a corrupt old hag and an even older old commie fruitcake. And I don’t think it’s that likely that he gets primaried either, unless he really, REALLY shits the bed as president. If his approval ratings are down around ~25%, maybe, but otherwise they’ll fall in line just like they have this election cycle.

        *Depending on your definition of “decent candidate”. Warren probably wouldn’t be considered a “decent candidate” by any of us here, but the commie kids lover her as much as they did Bernie. Plus, “vagina!”

      5. I agree that she may retire after 4 years, if only because she mainly just wants her name in the history books and the second terms would be redundant. Why not just retire.

  22. It couldn’t possibly be that Cruz is just another unprincipled hack who, now that the polls are close and it looks like maybe Trump might actually win this thing, is willing to “kiss the ring” and get on his knees in exchange for a cabinet post or some other quid pro-quo?

    Nah, that’s unpossible.

  23. Of course, given the breathtaking level of Federal overreach, anybody who doesn’t have their head up their ass knows it is beyond ANYONE to President of this country. That’s the hilarious part of modern governance in the West. NOBODY is qualified, but instead of hammering on that point until it hits home, “libertarians” spend time justifying the establishment as it now stands, with a nip here and tuck there. Neither Trump nor Clinton are up for the job. They’re ultimately grifters, but they’re bad at hiding it, so those who need to run their superstitions through the Super Ordinate, it is loathsome that they have to chose between the two. But it takes blind superstition to be able to delude oneself that ANYONE can do it.

  24. There are two types of quasi-intelligent approaches to the Trump thing on the Republican side. There are those who can’t vote for him because he’s simply unacceptable, regardless of any policy differences with Clinton. Then there’s the argument that at least he’ll appoint rightwingers to the Supreme Court, so we have to vote for him and just hope he doesn’t get everything nuked.

    I can’t say where I’d land if I were a Republican. Of course there are reasons I’m not one. Maybe the elites of the party should have a nice long chat with themselves about why exactly they’re members of a party that would nominate Trump as its leader.

    1. Maybe the elites of the party should have a nice long chat with themselves about why exactly they’re members of a party that would nominate TrumpHillary as its leader.

      Thanks for proving my point: it is not hard to come up with reasons for opposing Trump, but even Team Blue loyalists cannot name a single reason for supporting a grifting sociopath like Herself.

      1. Oh gee I didn’t totally predict that response.

        The difference is, unlike Trump, Clinton isn’t actually a grifting sociopath. But you’d have to remove your head from the right-wing misinformation toilet for five minutes to know that.

        1. Clinton isn’t actually a grifting sociopath

          lolz

        2. I guess she just made $100+M through a career in government honestly

          1. No, mostly through honest capitalism, supply and demand.

            1. They demanded corruption, and she supplied.

            2. There is always a demand for govt influence, but purchasing it has never been a component of capitalism.

              1. So they paid the most famous woman in the world to give speeches, much like they do for other famous people, with the hopes that should she become president she’ll veto laws that go against the interests of the firm in question. I wonder why they don’t just lobby Congress like normal.

                But then you probably believe that Obama’s presidency is the result of a conspiracy to hide his true birthplace.

                1. I wonder why they don’t just lobby Congress like normal.

                  Who would pay for drippings when you can get the whole steak? Congress is complicated, there are too many moving pieces, and besides, what can they do, out in the open? Someone who is and may again be in a position of substantial power, and is willing to turn their office out for tricks like a Tijuana prostitute? Now, that’s where you put your money.

                2. But then you probably believe that Obama’s presidency is the result of a conspiracy to hide his true birthplace.

                  You do little to bolster your argument by throwing out non sequiturs like this.

                  1. And Domestic Dissident isn’t even on this thread.

          2. Speeches! The people, they love to hear her talk! Which is why her poll numbers go down every time she opens her mouth…

        3. Clinton isn’t actually a grifting sociopath

          … do they have different dictionaries were you are from?

          1. I prefer for words to be used precisely. She’s obviously not a sociopath. You can tell that even through the TV, so that’s an abominable slander. And when has she been a grifter? By selling books and speeches?

            1. And when has she been a grifter?

              when she sold the influence of her office as SoS, for starters. A sane party would have DQ’d her for cause just on that.

            2. Since when is it “an abominable slander” to call a politician a sociopath? It’s practically the job description. And you herself described her “speeches” as alluding to some pay-for-play. That’s exactly what “grifting” means.

              1. And you herself described her “speeches” as alluding to some pay-for-play. That’s exactly what “grifting” means.

                Sounds more like graft. I think grifting involves some kind of deception or fraud. The people paying her 6 figures to speak knew what they were getting.

                1. Sounds more like graft. I think grifting involves some kind of deception or fraud. The people paying her 6 figures to speak knew what they were getting.

                  True, but I’m sure more than one person gave a “donation” without getting all they were promised in return.

            3. Successful sociopaths are good at hiding their sociopathy.

              I can’t really imagine anyone succeeding in politics not being some kind of sociopath.

              1. Fine, but I think she’s innocent until proved guilty of being a psycho.

            4. “She’s obviously not a sociopath. You can tell that even through the TV”

              Holy fucking shit, what a goddamned dumbass.

        4. Clinton isn’t actually a grifting sociopath.

          BWAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!1!!!!!! *inhales deeply* BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          That’s the funniest damn thing I’ve ever read. EVER.

    2. Hi Tony,

      Your concern about getting nuked, though perhaps hyperbolic, is well-taken. Can you please refresh my memory as to which candidate has voted for one disastrous war and was the mastermind of another disastrous war that was never taken to Congress for a vote but was variously described as “a shitshow” and “the worst mistake of my presidency”? Was that Trump? I forget….

      1. Trump has never been in a position to vote for anything, which is not exactly an argument in his favor, except to idiot bumpkins.

        1. Perhaps not, but it strikes me as a tad disingenuous to fret over whether Trump might get us into a war, when the candidate you support voted for Iraq and then, as Secretary of State, she orchestrated the invasion of Libya, looked at the Iraq disaster for guidance, and concluded that the only mistake was asking for Congress to vote on it.

          1. I blame the Iraq invasion for the people who actually waged it. HRC never once endorsed the specific actions that followed her authorization vote. Libya is somewhat of a mark on her record, sure. I’m not going to defend it like it was the best example of use of force ever. But France started that, not Hillary, and nobody can say definitively that doing nothing was a better alternative. It was a minor shit show in the grand scheme of American foreign policy shit shows, but nobody here said Hillary was perfect. Just that she’s not Trump and is actually qualified for the job.

            1. So you’re okay with the President unconstitutionally waging a war without the consent and authorization of the people’s representatives so long as it’s just a “minor shit show”?

              1. No response, I see. I guess it’s hard to deal with the fact that you’re tossing all of your supposed principles to support someone who is a bigger war-monger than Bush?

            2. HRC never once endorsed the specific actions that followed her authorization vote.

              What “specific actions” are you refering to? The invasion of a country that was not an imminent threat? She was voting to authorize the invasion of a country. Are you suggesting she didn’t know what going to war with and invading another country entailed? Either she’s really fucking stupid, or you are. Or both

              Libya is somewhat of a mark on her record, sure … It was a minor shit show in the grand scheme of American foreign policy shit shows

              Oh, just a minor shit show, well then objection fucking withdrawn I guess! Good fucking God…

              PSA: Kids, this what happens when you become a brain dead partisan hack. Don’t let “Tony” happen to you.

        2. I see. So the person who HAS made numerous decisions re: war, none of which have turned out too well, is superior to the guy not in a position to vote for anything.

          1. She’s superior in ways too numerous to list. That we can’t possibly know how Trump will handle matters of war is, again, not a point in his favor. He has endorsed policies favoring using nukes and targeting civilians, so that’s what you have to go on.

            1. She’s superior in ways too numerous to list.

              i.e., 0

              1. No.

                Hillary’s accomplishments are very real negative ones coupled with lots of positive imaginary ones.

                In other words, to count Hillary’s accomplishments, one needs to use a complex number like -4,687 + 2,498i .

        3. “Trump has never been in a position to vote for anything, which is not exactly an argument in his favor, except to idiot bumpkins.”

          Barack Obama was never in any position to have any say over going to Iraq, but his “opposition” is still the only thing that won him a presidency.

          Whether it’s an argument for Trump or not, it’s certainly an argument against Hillary. I despise Trump, and would never vote for him, or anyone else that shitty party puts forward. But my number one priority is ending the murdering of innocent foreigners with my tax money, and we know for a stone-cold fact that Hillary is the worst in that regards.

          Make whatever other arguments you have to, but it’s a basic fact that if Hillary is your first choice, little brown babies burning alive because of their skin color is not your number one priority.

          1. Sure it is. Democrats have a smaller body count than Republicans. And those are the only two choices.

    3. The GOP’s mistake was being too Democratic. The elites weren’t carrying enough water for a single pick like the dems.

      If the dems had a more open election free of interference from above, at the very least they’d have Liz Warren the pseudosocialist and possible even Samders the senile old communist as their nominee. What you can’t accept is that your “moderate” candidate owes her nomination to the coordination of party elites, not the sanity of the voters. Forget even the DNC trying to sabotage Sanders; what about all the front runners, like Biden and Warren, bowing out to make room for it’s-my-turn Hillary?

  25. To be fair. Anyone sociopathic enough to make a serious run at the Presidency probably does believe that both (a) everyone NOT them is unqualified to be President (by not being them) and (b) it’s totally okay to endorse some other person if it keeps you in the discussion for next time.

  26. When it comes to the pledge, the thing that I would respect would be a candidate that simply refuses to make any pledge like that. I see no virtue in promising to support someone when you don’t know who it will be or what they will be saying when it comes time for the general campaign.

    1. Given how unpopular the parties are, I’m amazed that candidates don’t actually try to score points by pissing on the pledge.

    2. As I recall, the point of the pledge was to keep Trump from threatening a third-party run when he eventually lost because they were all very certain he would inevitably lose and were afraid of what he would do from there.

      Things didn’t really go as planned.

      1. ^This^

        They really didn’t expect that to come back to bite them in the ass.

  27. “Cruz……has decided that the Republican nominee, awful as he might be, is still preferable to Hillary Clinton.”

    If you can’t confidently argue against that premise, then bashing Trump is little more than a childish tantrum.

    Looking at you Reason writers

  28. To be fair, they are both liars who happen to fit the legal requirement of being US citizens over the age of 35. Beyond that, saying Trump is unfit does not mean that Clinton is, somehow, fit. This is an election of bad versus worse. It is an election of who you are voting against, not for.

  29. RE: Cruz Is the Latest Republican to Endorse a Man He Thinks Is Unfit to Be President

    Doesn’t that make you wish you had Cruz running for president?
    I mean, picking the biggest asshole the republicans could find, then correctly identifying him as an asshole, and now endorsing said rich, stupid and spoiled asshole?
    One can only guess how many tons of credibility Cruz lost when he endorsed Trump the Grump.

  30. my Aunty Aubrey recently got an almost new gold Mazda Sedan only from working part time off a mac book
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  31. I always wondered whether Cruz was a principled conservative or just a cynical opportunist.

    Now we know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.