Let’s get this out of the way right off the bat: Donald Trump will not be winning the White House. On a scale from Charles Pinckney to George McGovern, I’m guessing that Donald Trump’s loss – in a general election – would be at best an Alf Landon, but most likely a Walter Mondale. Yes, he’s crazy, dangerous, etc., but the most this lunatic can do is give us Hillary and destroy the GOP, he will never be the leader of the United States.
We all sit back and hope that at the Cleveland Convention someone other than Trump or his
bedfellow opponent, Ted Cruz, walks away with the nomination. This is the best option for the future, full stop. However, what if that doesn’t happen? What if it comes down to Trump or Teddy? Pretty much everyone with a pulse would say, “Why, Ted Cruz of course!”
But upon closer look… well, we’ll get to that.
I’ve been saying – since day one – that Trump is a parasite to Conservatism, and I haven’t changed my views on this; however, conservatives are deeply wrong in regards to choosing the lesser evil and what it will do to the GOP as a whole. At this point, choosing the lesser evil between the two is like giving CPR to a corpse and expecting that after it’s all over no one is going to judge you for going full Weekend at Bernie’s with it first. The only way to salvage this election is to either pick a completely different candidate at the convention, or go third party – I’ll explain why below, with three possible scenarios.
I’m also going to tell you why Donald Trump would be better than Ted Cruz on the general ticket if, God forbid, it comes down to one of them. Why? Because I’m the friend that tells you what you might not want to hear.
Before getting to the meat of this post I just want to say that I’m incredibly proud of Marco Rubio and his campaign. I believe in Marco, and I saw how humble, passionate, and decent he was. In a better world a man of good character, such as Marco, would have an easier path to the White House. Unfortunately in today’s world, the rejection of the angry masses is a badge of honor.
I think the featured image (GIF) explains my mood on Wednesday. Who’s with me?
Now, to the post:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
– Benjamin Franklin
You guys may be shocked to hear this [sarcasm], but I’m a rather stubborn person. From the time I was little I made choices and came to conclusions independently (to the displeasure of some) and, while I listened to others, if I didn’t agree I didn’t concede – regardless of their title (I owe a few pastors apologies). Oftentimes it wasn’t even concerning moral issues; if everyone dressed their Barbie in pink, but I didn’t like pink, I wasn’t going to put my Barbie in pink. Not out of defiance, but simply because – in my opinion – Barbie looked better in yellow.
Here’s the deal, guys, Marco Rubio repeated a sentence during the New Hampshire debate, but his despicable behavior didn’t start there. In 2013 – while giving a State of The Union response – the parched politician awkwardly grabbed a bottle of water. Rubio is also known to suffer from bouts of nervous sweating while engaging in public speaking where millions of viewers are watching, leading us to believe the devastating truth: he might be human.
We have to face these issues, and while I once supported the Florida Senator, I no longer can. Awkwardly reaching for H2o is simply not a forgivable act, and repeating a sentence simply drove the last nail into that Dasani flogged coffin. We should expect more from our politicians, it’s that simple. Our commander-in-chief needs to have the wherewithal to face the nation without needing to quench his thirst for life-sustaining liquid.
As an example of what we should look for in a presidential candidate, let’s look at the actions of Ted Cruz thus far on the campaign trail, compared to those of Marco Rubio.
First up, let’s talk about his campaign phone app. I mean sure, the Cruz Crew app might be antithetical to his supposed support of protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens…
His “Cruz Crew” mobile app is designed to gather detailed information from its users’ phones — tracking their physical movements and mining the names and contact information for friends who might want nothing to do with his campaign.
But let me ask you a question: Has Ted Cruz ever entered into a situation under-hydrated? No. I didn’t think so.
UPDATED AFTER NH DEBATE!
Back in 2011, on The Duke Machado Show, Ted Cruz was interviewed on his immigration stance. The video, filmed in Waco, TX, following a Tea Party Senate forum, was not fully released until yesterday, February 4th. A portion of the video was released when the discussion on Birthright Citizenship was being bounced around, see below:
His stance has clearly changed, considering his current immigration plan, located here:
End birthright citizenship. It makes no sense for us to be providing the tremendous incentive of automatic citizenship to the children of those who enter illegally. Most nations on earth do not do so, and neither should we. Birthright citizenship was meant to ensure that the children of slaves were guaranteed citizenship. It was not meant to confer citizenship on the children of people who are here illegally; nor was it intended to confer citizenship on the children of birth tourists, a burgeoning industry that makes a mockery of American citizenship. As President, I will take immediate steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.
The full video, which lasts for roughly 21 minutes, has now been released by Duke, along with Patriot Insight. Five months ago, in the comments section of the above video, Duke – being a conservative – gave an answer as to why he withheld the rest of the footage:
WARNING: It’s about to get super nerdy all up in here.
As many of you are aware, I’m a bookworm, and J. R. R. Tolkien is a god in the literary world. So, of course, he created one of the greatest unifying characters of all time: Aragorn. I’m overwhelmed with great sadness over the fact that Aragorn is unfamiliar to many, and while I’m also rather disheartened that Khan may be a foreign name, as well, I’ll do my best to give a quick synopsis of their characters without going into incredible detail.
Disclosure: No, I’m not saying that Ted Cruz is Khan, nor that Marco Rubio is Aragorn. For example, I don’t think Rubio has killed any Uruk-hai and, quite frankly, I think we can all agree that we don’t want to see Ted Cruz in the bare-chested Wrath of Khan wardrobe. I’m just noting a few similarities in leadership techniques, and bringing some levity to the discussion because the current state of politics makes me want to curl up in a ball with a chocolate cake and regency era novels, and sob.
Khan Noonien Singh: Think Ricardo Montalban, not Cumberbatch. I may have picked this character because I could then refer to Ted Cruz as an “augmented human,” but as it turns out, the comparison fits quite nicely as a whole. In the very beginning, Khan is a fairly decent being; he comes across as kind, calm, gracious, but yet disregards the wants of others. Kirk even referred to him as “the best of the tyrants,” but also as the “most dangerous.” After being marooned on a “barren sandheap,” he led a revolt for the blind pursuit of revenge. Khan was indeed a villain, but he never saw himself as a villain, he felt as though he was righteously angry and deserving of revenge – he felt it was the right thing to do, you might say. His followers were dedicated and blinded themselves to his faults, as well as the danger an alliance with him induced, and they remained loyal because he was superior to normal humans. Ted Cruz followers offer this same level of oblivious loyalty; they trust him – despite blatant character scruples – so everyone should trust him.
Four candidates are in the lead: Hillary and Bernie on the left, Donald and Ted on the right. That pretty much says all you need to know about politics in America at this point in time; The bill of goods, the con artist, the perpetual martyr, and Donald… Calm and sensible is no longer the route we are on, you must whisper sweet nothings of free stuff, lie, or be as outrageous and egotistical as you possibly can. Or in Hillary’s case, all of that, plus have female genitalia.
I’m convinced that this is no longer about left and right, this is Big Government vs. Small Government, Reality TV vs. Facts, Authoritarianism vs. Democratic Principles, Pizzazz vs. Sanity, and they’re winning because maybe – just maybe – we’ve crossed the isthmus.
Mafia mentality, reality TV politics, and authoritarianism are what’s in right now. Like a horrible, horrible fashion choice. Like skinny jeans and man buns, side ponytails and tight rolled pants.
Real Feminism, Conservatism, and Liberalism are so last century.
The CNN GOP Debate took place last night. Or as I like to call it, “Best In Show: Political Edition.”
Once again, we were gifted with a few more examples of Ted Cruz’s burgeoning lack of integrity. Cruz spent the evening catapulting baseless attacks at Camp Rubio, but when asked about Donald Trump he did the verbal equivalent of fleeing the country and going under Witness Protection to escape the threat of losing the overrated vote of Trump’s cultist ilk. It was moderately infuriating, and I think Leon Wolf with Red State put it better than I can:
It’s not just that Cruz disagreed with Rubio. It’s that his disagreement was laced with biting sarcasm and personal attacks. For many (if not most) of us who are not already in Camp Trump, Rubio is considered to be an acceptable choice for the nomination (if not our first), and only a fool would not concede that he presents the best chance in the general to defeat Hillary. Watching a guy who’s turned turtle repeatedly to a fake conservative insult comic, only to turn around and show some fighting spirit against a guy who is actually conservative was a little hard to stomach.
While Ted Cruz blatantly lied to his faithful following, Marco Rubio was honest about certain positions he’s held throughout his political career, even if they don’t sell well to the rage driven faction of quasi-conservatives.
CRUZ: Look, I understand Marco wants to raise confusion, it is not accurate what he just said that I supported legalization. Indeed, I led the fight against his legalization and amnesty. And you know, there was one commentator that put it this way that, for Marco to suggest our record’s the same is like suggesting “the fireman and the arsonist because they are both at the scene of the fire.”
The truth? Take a moment to watch this video of Ted Cruz supporting legalization: