Romney said he'd vote Cruz in Utah (to engineer a brokered convention) and Kasich is not pleased about it.

Cruz's sincerity about not wanting a brokered convention will be in part testified by how he reacts to this.

(03-18-2016 06:50 PM)wi30 Wrote:  Just ordered a Trump t-shirt and bumper sticker.

I'm done living in the shadows.

Heres the aftermath when peaceful, non-violent liberals see your shitlord of a car:

   

I officially nominate myself as RVF Master of MS Paint.

Interesting Article:

Forget Trump: Here's Who's Really Destroying the Republican Party
David Dayen,The Fiscal Times

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/forge...00374.html

Indeed, this implacability is more reminiscent of how Ted Cruz has operated in the Senate, with his demands to shut down the government over Obamacare in 2013. Cruz actually sees that event as his defining moment, even though it accomplished nothing. And his acolytes in the House are following this script. We’re seeing the Cruz-ification of the Republican Party, not the Trump-ification.

Trump’s cult of personality may come and go. But the Freedom Caucus phenomenon seems much more consequential. And it’s hard to figure out how Republicans will manage the fallout.

Everything old is new again...

FREEDOM ... William Wallace

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a...ot-a-bush/

Quote:National Review’s barrage against Donald Trump won’t make much difference in the race, but clarifies nonetheless. In an editorial and 22 signed contributions, the magazine urges conservatives to reject Trump. Ninety percent of those likely to be influenced by National Review (a small, but not negligible number in a GOP primary) would have come to that conclusion without any help: Trump is not and never has been an establishment conservative, and other perfectly capable candidates are filling that niche. Nonetheless, NR‘s “Against Trump” campaign reveals much about the magazine and the current state of the conservative movement.

National Review has a a history, and not entirely a dismal one, of efforts to exclude people from the ranks of respectable conservatism. In the 1950s, it hardly helped conservatism of any stripe to have the John Birch Society proclaiming that Eisenhower and his brother were witting communist agents: it simply made the Right seem kooky and stupid. Buckley’s dismissal of the group was prudent. But subsequent purges targeted not kooks, but ideological opponents, especially after the end of the Cold War. Twenty years ago National Review sought to damage Pat Buchanan’s presidential bid by publishing various polemics and jointly signed statements against him. Buchanan was vulnerable because part of his appeal was as a loyal Republican who had spent many years at Nixon’s and Reagan’s side, before he began to challenge the GOP consensus.

In Buchanan’s case, the actual reasons for opposing him were seldom the stated ones. His greatest sin against the establishment right was that he opposed the first Iraq war, and made an enemy of the neoconservatives who had become an increasingly dominant part of the conservative coalition. Seven years later, NR struck again, with a 2003 cover story denouncing as “unpatriotic” those conservatives who were trying to warn against the folly of the second Iraq war. The attack, published under magazine’s current editor Rich Lowry, was hardly damaging to the individuals targeted, but did reveal that support for wars in the Mideast had become the only true litmus test for the establishment Right.

NR‘s Trump attacks cover the spectrum: Trump is both too much to the left, and too much to the right. Trump is a two bit Caesar, he is racist, he is liberal, he once supported abortion, he supported the TARP bailouts, he is not a real conservative. In so many words, he is not one of us.

But of course anyone giving Trump a look knew that already. His differences from establishment conservatism are part of his appeal. To understand that, it helps to consider what “really existing conservatism” has has meant to Americans over the past generation. The blunt truth is that the most important “conservative” project in recent memory was the Iraq war, which cost trillions, wrecked the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and set the Middle East aflame for what will probably be a generation. Programmatically, the war was the project of a Republican president and his administration. It was backed enthusiastically by National Review (see “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” linked above), but had its intellectual origins in the world of neoconservatism. Not coincidentally, Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz, editors of magazines which were agitating for war against Iraq long before 9/11, are probably the best known among NR‘s slate of Trump denouncers. In other words, as the United States still grapples with the chaotic aftermath of that Iraq invasion, NR and the rest of Conservatism Inc. unleash a verbal torrent claiming that Donald Trump is a threat to those concepts—“small government,” “the permanent things”—which true conservatives supposedly hold dear. It’s almost comical.

But in ways realms different from those considered by National Review and the Beltway right-wingers, Donald Trump is a kind of conservative. In his speeches, he has tried to fill out his “Make America Great Again” slogan with some notion of what kind of society he is trying to conserve, or restore. He has talked—not very politely, but probably in the only way possible to get people to listen—about ending illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration. This is of course critical if the United States is to remain the country which it has always been, one with relatively open spaces and relatively high wages. He speaks about stopping the hemorrhage of American manufacturing jobs to China and elsewhere. Would he succeed? It’s not clear—it would certainly be difficult. But nations before have tried, and succeeded, to protect their manufacturers, and the jobs and relative social stability that go along with them. For National Review however, such policies simply are not “conservative”—and the editors mock Trump for his “threats to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste.”

The society that Trump has in mind when he speaks of restoring America’s greatness is probably something like the America of the Eisenhower administration. Ike was reelected by a landslide when Donald J. Trump was ten years old. He carried New York state by 22 percent. Of course Eisenhower isn’t any sort of model for most in the conservative movement. The National Review of William F. Buckley’s era thought Ike’s administration stultifying. Conservative intellectuals railed against Ike’s readiness to accommodate itself to New Deal social legislation and his refusal to risk war by trying to liberate Eastern Europe. Eisenhower’s rule convinced Buckley’s friend Whittaker Chambers, for one, that capitalism was the losing side.

But a certain style of main street conservatism did thrive during the Eisenhower era. It was not revolutionary, did not look towards unleashing “democratic revolutions” in distant regions, or unraveling the regulatory chains on finance capitalism. It was devoted to bettering the lives of average Americans and practicing a strategy of containment in the Cold War. Public infrastructure was built. Industry expanded, wages grew. Married couples raised big families. Illegal aliens were deported. It was not the conservatism of the Kristols or Podhoretzes—Ike didn’t start any big wars in the Mideast or elsewhere and indeed backed the UN consensus by forcing Israel to cough up its 1956 conquests in the Sinai. Nor of the Cato Institute—taxes on the rich were high, and the government spent a lot of money on public works useful to all.

For most Americans, this was a good thing—society was basically stable, supposedly a conservative virtue. Trump certainly holds no briefs for the residual segregation of that era: if press accounts are to be believed, his taste for glamor and celebrity have led him to a more racially diverse personal life than any other candidate running. But there are plenty of signs he aspires to be a sort of Eisenhower for his time, more solicitous of middle America than of Wall Street, more concerned about American living standards than an ambitious ideological remake of the world. Asked at a New Hampshire town hall about how he would “restore stability” to the Mideast after defeating ISIS, he demurred. “Our bridges, our infrastructure are falling apart,” he answered.

It is likely that this take-care-of-Americans-first attitude is the true source of National Review’s hostility to Trump. Chris Matthews raised this point in a provocative interview on Hardball: what they really hate about Trump is not his bombast, but his opposition to the Iraq war, and the idea that he would take the Republican Party off the militaristic intervention track. That he would, in other words, take the GOP back to Eisenhower’s time. Matthews recalled from experience (not his own) that coordinated multi-signature attack is a tell-tale neocon tactic, used to try to push George W. Bush into making war against Iraq, before that used to depict Pat Buchanan as beyond the pale.

This is not to say that there are not legitimate questions about Trump’s temperament, his ability to function as America’s chief executive, or his suitability as any kind of personal role model to the nation. There are. Valid points are raised by some of the National Review contributors. Many others—including people fairly well disposed towards Trump’s candidacy—are asking them as well. But perhaps members of the “mainstream establishment conservatism” as represented by National Review are not the best people to raise them.

(03-18-2016 06:58 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 06:44 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I wouldn't rule out a last minute attempt to change the 1,237 rule if Trump gets all the delegates he needs.

Every hailmary that they can throw at him will be thrown.

If they do take it that far I will then be 100% sure(rather then 90% now) that they(GOP) prefer Hillary in office rather than Trump because if they do him wrong they can kiss a republican candidates chances goodbye.

The GOPe called the suicide hotline and is now in the overly dramatic bargaining stage.

Ron Paul: GOP is threatened by Trump, will do everything possible' to stop Trump
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/480702255...show-clips
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...stop-trump

Quote:“The Republican Party is obviously threatened by Trump being his own boss,” Paul told host Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria." "They like to control people. They’ll do whatever they can. They’re terrified of competition.

“I think that the Republicans will do everything possible in these last few primaries to keep Trump from capitalizing on this. Then they’ll go to the convention. There’s already threats out there.”

“Trump’s not going to go away easily,” he said. "That’s not going to happen. He likes trouble and he doesn’t mind threatening people.

“The biggest mess is for the Republican Party.”

Paul said the media circus surrounding Trump’s campaign would prevent the GOP from twisting any electoral rules.

“There’s more exposure this time, which is very good.”

“If they mess around and change the rules, the Trump supporters will know. They’re really in a bind. They’re not going to come out of this with very many benefits for the Republican Party.”

(03-18-2016 06:58 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 06:44 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I wouldn't rule out a last minute attempt to change the 1,237 rule if Trump gets all the delegates he needs.

Every hailmary that they can throw at him will be thrown.

If they do take it that far I will then be 100% sure(rather then 90% now) that they(GOP) prefer Hillary in office rather than Trump because if they do him wrong they can kiss a republican candidates chances goodbye.

Roger Stone suspects something is coming:

I don't know if this has been posted earlier, but I figured it would be useful to post an electronic copy of the official Rules of the Republican Party:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngo...090314.pdf

Rally :
15,000+ watching

I hope Trump goes in hard on Mitt Romney while he is Utah. Utah seems like more of a natural Cruz stronghold so many as well go scorched earth.

(03-18-2016 04:00 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  



The Japanese Trump admirer strikes again! Trump-senpai!!!!

What a crazy bish. WESOTB

Would Eat Sushi On Then Bang!

I hope she brings all that energy to the bedroom.

Wake up, guys! Whatever happened to high energy?!

Hopefully everyone is out finding a sloot, it is Friday night after all.

...I'm programming.

Looks like Ron is coming to his senses. Trump/Paul 2k16???

Mormons are pro-Mexican as a matter of theology, and so generally they dislike Trump.

If there is a brokered convention or any other shenanigans, it's the GOP effectively self-destructing the Party for the one time benefit of excluding Trump from the presidency. I don't believe that the party would survive it, and I'm fairly certain that they are also aware of that fact. I don't think they will do it, despite the GOP loud mouths and the media bluster. In fact, I think that they are best served, in terms of self preservation, by assisting Trump into office and then weathering his tenure. I think that's going to be the case. I think that the media hostility is a setup for social chaos that facilitates more change outside of the office of the presidency, as well as a setup for the next election should Hillary lose. Of course, it's also free campaigning for Hillary, but to me the particular viciousness of their attacks speaks to interests that transcend this election.

But here's a controversial opinion:

I think that Trump would also ultimately be good for the liberals. There's a lot of agitated political steam that needs to be released on the Right. If they don't allow it to be so through someone like Trump and soon, eventually they are going to face a real mutherfucker with more rabid support. And of course since Trump is already Literally Hitler, there isn't really anywhere else to go with that line of rhetoric. They may even get what they absolutely don't want in a subsequent election: people who widely embrace the Nazi accusations not because they are Nazis, but because the accusation has lost all meaning.

Univision and Telemundo have been showing more and more stories about immigration, yesterday Univision showed a woman on wheelchair who has been in the USA for 30 years illegally being deported, today Telemundo showed several more, one was a woman who said she got a death threat back in her home country, the other was a guy who has been deported 4 times, they showed him arriving to him family in his country and how his mother, wife (who was also deported years before) and son had a dream of being in the USA together.

There is something deep here, Telemundo and Univision benefit a lot from illegal immigration, specially from Mexico, and Telemundo and Univision are Hillary donors, Haim Saban who owns Univision bought The Onion and is using it to help Hillary.

Univision and Telemundo know that they cannot convince the American Trump supporters, they cannot convince immigrants from not Spanish speaking countries, but the real fear is that despite the their outrage, at the end of the day, illegals mean shit, so, they need to get the legals Hispanics immigrants to vote against Trump, the problem come when they see and know that many Hispanics do not like illegal immigration, and there is many Hispanics whom secretly support Trump, (he won Nevada Hispanic against two Cubans).

So, Univision and Telemudo and using these stories emotional blackmail legal Hispanics immigrants to vote against Trump, just like Europe media use the few women and children to emotional blackmail Europeans into accepting the rapefugges.

(03-18-2016 06:20 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Trump has 65% in New York.

He's going to win all 95 of this state's delegates.

I think with De-blazi-shmo it's time for us to uncuck ourselves.

I love how shitlordy the conservatives are in the most liberal states. Nothing breeds principles like direct confrontation with reality.

Quote:15,000+ watching

It was up to 30,000 but then it stopped streaming.

(03-18-2016 09:02 PM)GoldHawkStar Wrote:  

[img]https://www.medtrip.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Guy-Sleeping-on-Laptop.png[/

[img]https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/gop_2016_trump_israel.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1[/

Wake up, guys! Whatever happened to high energy?!

Common guys lets get to 1000 pages



I'll buy the first post on the 1000th page RVF GOLD

(03-18-2016 09:09 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  Looks like Ron is coming to his senses. Trump/Paul 2k16???

My dream ticket.

WBACTVF
(would become American citizen to vote for)

2 pages since I went to sleep? Sad!

(03-18-2016 09:14 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  Univision and Telemundo have been showing more and more stories about immigration, yesterday Univision showed a woman on wheelchair who has been in the USA for 30 years illegally being deported, today Telemundo showed several more, one was a woman who said she got a death threat back in her home country, the other was a guy who has been deported 4 times, they showed him arriving to him family in his country and how his mother, wife (who was also deported years before) and son had a dream of being in the USA together.

There is something deep here, Telemundo and Univision benefit a lot from illegal immigration, specially from Mexico, and Telemundo and Univision are Hillary donors, Haim Saban who owns Univision bought The Onion and is using it to help Hillary.

Univision and Telemundo know that they cannot convince the American Trump supporters, they cannot convince immigrants from not Spanish speaking countries, but the real fear is that despite the their outrage, at the end of the day, illegals mean shit, so, they need to get the legals Hispanics immigrants to vote against Trump, the problem come when they see and know that many Hispanics do not like illegal immigration, and there is many Hispanics whom secretly support Trump, (he won Nevada Hispanic against two Cubans).

So, Univision and Telemudo and using these stories emotional blackmail legal Hispanics immigrants to vote against Trump, just like Europe media use the few women and children to emotional blackmail Europeans into accepting the rapefugges.

Haim Saban...the mind behind power rangers...the show that put minorities into suits that matched their skin color or gender and then made the "white ranger" the absolute best of them...that Haim Saban?



That guy owns Univision? Hilarious.

I never really followed Infowars, how much reach does this Alex Jones have exactly? What's the viewership like? How reliable is it as a source of information? I've always been put off by his clickbaity style of delivering his message and peddling of questionable products. He spends 10 minutes in this video going off about how Donald Trump is the real deal, that he's deeply informed about the globalist agenda, and that Trump has a plan and truly does want to the man that saves America. Followed of course by a 2 minute bullshit infomercial.

(03-18-2016 10:55 PM)Mr. Pink Wrote:  I never really followed Infowars, how much reach does this Alex Jones have exactly? What's the viewership like? How reliable is it as a source of information? I've always been put off by his clickbaity style of delivering his message and peddling of questionable products. He spends 10 minutes in this video going off about how Donald Trump is the real deal, that he's deeply informed about the globalist agenda, and that Trump has a plan and truly does want to the man that saves America. Followed of course by a 2 minute bullshit infomercial.

Infowars is a top 1000 site in the US. Over a million pageviews a day. It gets a lot of reach, but it also has a reputation for crazy, so it's hard to say just how much influence it actually has. I'd say it's better than your average run-of-the-mill blog, but definitely not classified as mainstream.

Also, infowars co-anchor Lee Ann Mcadoo is quite the news babe WB (and she has been talked about on RVF before too).