Editorial: A few things to cogitate before going to the presidential caucuses

In a matter of days Nevada Democrats and Republicans will be asked to lend their support to one of their parties’ candidates in the state’s first-in-the-West caucuses. The decisions will be closely watched by the rest of the nation and could help sway the eventual outcome of the contest. So it is imperative that we make studious and informed decisions.

Democrats will gather at mid-day Saturday and Republicans on Tuesday evening in precincts across the state.

For Democrats the choice is basically between socialism and socialism light. Take your pick. If you liked President Obama’s performance, you’ll love either one of these candidates.

But Republicans are cursed by being blessed with some tough choices. All the remaining candidates on the GOP slate are credible, experienced, principled and conservative individuals who could do much to turn this country and its economy around over the coming years — save one.

Donald Trump (Reuters photo)

To begin with, Donald Trump has never been and is not a Republican. His core political philosophy is: Whatever is good for Donald Trump — everyone else be damned.

Trump has flip-flopped on every major issue, as well as his choices of political affiliation, most recently changing from an independent to a Republican Party registration in 2012. Until recently he had contributed more money to Democrats than Republicans — including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid. He has called himself a liberal and said the country is better off when Democrats are in the White House.

Though he rails against ObamaCare he has often and recently advocated a universal single-payer health care system similar to Canada’s.

Trump has proposed huge tariffs on imported goods — similar to those imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 that helped deepen and lengthen the Great Depression — that would raise prices for everyone and would likely start a tariff war that would kill American workers’ jobs by slashing exports.

On education, after once calling Common Core a disaster, he then said Common Core is here to stay, but now says it has to go.

For a man who claims to be able to deal with and win over the likes of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and the world’s assorted dictators and potentates, it was telling that he could not face Fox News’ Megan Kelly from the debate stage because she once confronted him about his numerous sexist and misogynistic comments.

“I would bring back waterboarding,” Trump blusters. “And I would bring back a hell of a lot worse.”

Thin-skinned Trump sues people at the drop of a slight.

Trump’s immigration stances are a muddle of implausibles and impracticalities. He calls for deporting everyone residing here illegally but then letting the decent and law-abiding ones back in. We get stuck with the bill coming and going.

“I think eminent domain is fine,” he has said, specifically referring to the Kelo court decision that let communities grab private property from one person to give to a company that might generate more tax revenue. He tried to use eminent domain to grab a woman’s home so he could build limousine parking for one of his casinos. During a debate he said the Keystone XL pipeline would not get 10 feet without eminent domain, but The Wall Street Journal reports that 96 percent of the easements needed for the pipeline have already been lined up. He never lets the facts get in the way of his rants.

Trump has said he sees nothing wrong with the federal government controlling 85 percent of the land in Nevada and 50 percent of the land in the West.

He supported Obama’s bank bailouts and ruinous and futile stimulus spending.

Once pro-choice on abortion, he now claims to be pro-life.

After earlier calling for legalizing drugs, he now opposes even state sanctioned marijuana sales, such as in Colorado.

Since earlier calling for longer waiting periods and tougher background checks before one might purchase a gun, he now claims to be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.

In 2000, Trump called for privatization of Social Security, but now he opposes any changes whatsoever as the system slides toward bankruptcy.

The Tax Foundation calculates that Trump’s tax proposal would increase the federal government’s deficit by $10 trillion.

Please share these Trump facts with others when you go to your precinct’s caucus to choose delegates. Not a good pick for Nevada.

A version of this editorial appeared this past week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record. It ran as a column in the Elko Daily Free Press.


42 comments on “Editorial: A few things to cogitate before going to the presidential caucuses

  1. For those who would like a second opinion on Trump, take a look at an editorial in today’s IBD:

  2. For those who would like to know more about where Bernie really stands. Here is another IBD editorial today:

  3. Winston Smith says:

    It cracks me up that so many conservatives that complained about the Neo-con RINO-ness of Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney now support Mr. Wildcard Trump. Every political principle is just a coin flip away from being changed with him.

  4. Nyp says:

    If I were participating in the GOP caucuses I would go for Rubio because of his strong stand in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. At least you know that he is a man of conviction.

  5. How about a third opinion…

  6. dave72 says:

    Isn’t Donald Trump displaying the one guiding principle of capitalism? “Support whatever is good for ME — everyone else be damned.”

  7. Anonymous says:

    What do you think it says about the Republican Party that Trump is the clear front-runner?

  8. Only that the folks are damn sick and tired of business as usual in Washington…they’re pissed!

  9. Steve says:

    That also explains Sanders showing against Clinton.

  10. Barbara says:

    The Republican establishment should realize that Trump can only be stopped by Cruz. Rubio cannot hope to bring the base into the party with his betrayal on immigration. He would suffer the same fate as Dole, Ford, McCain, and Romney. Of course, the Party leaders hate Cruz so much they will destroy the Party and our country rather than see Cruz as President.

  11. Steve says:

    The GOP does not want Trump. They are as stuck with him as the DNC is stuck with Sanders.

    Both easily fit the outsider label making them popular among many on all sides who do not like the DC elite.

    I think the GOP would be fine with Cruz if Trump was not mucking things up. But Rubio would stand out in that case.

  12. Barbara says:

    Steve – The conservative base will not turn out and support Rubio just as they did not support Romney. With Rubio as the nominee, amnesty would be taken off the table as an issue just as Romneycare nullified Obamacare. If the party wants to win the Presidency, Cruz is the only option. Trump cannot win the general election for all the reasons Tom mentions. Cruz could come back and win in 4 years, but by then, I fear it will be too late to appoint conservative justices to the Cout.

  13. Nyp says:

    Today’s Second Amendment moment: seven people shot dead in Michigan.


  14. All bets are off now. Bush has suspended his campaign…the lion’s share of his 7.8% will most likely migrate to Rubio. If Kasich suspends his campaign…another 7.6% of the establishment vote will more than likely head Rubio’s way also. That would give him around 38% to Trump’s 33%. Dr. Carson’s 7.2% would most likely migrate to Cruz…which would still leave him in third place at 30%. Nevada is suddenly a little more important now…but Trump’s crowds are dwarfing the other candidates…so IMHO the only way for Trump’s rug to be pulled out from underneath him is for Rubio and Cruz to team up…a dynamic Hispanic duo.

  15. Unfortunately for Bernie…the Clinton fix is already in. The Reid machine along with an anemic turnout compared to 2008 was his undoing here in the Battle Born state. The Super Delegate chicanery will guarantee Hillary the nomination if she isn’t indicted, which with Obama and Loretta Lynch at the helm…seems less likely every day that passes due to their sandbagging and subterfuge.

  16. Steve says:

    It’s the conservative base turning out for Trump that has the GOP stymied. Getting those votes to switch to either Cruz or Rubio will be difficult at best.
    My point was Trump continues to keep the GOP in a mess and that has been his plan all along.
    If Trump was not in the race, Rubio would be the front runner today. It’s Trump’s demagoguery taking votes away from Cruz and Rubio due precisely to their ancestry.

  17. Steve says:

    And, Nyp, as usual is wrong.

  18. Nyp says:

    You are so right. Only 6 dead, plus two wounded in this latest celebration of our Second Amendment freedoms.
    My bad.

  19. Patrick says:

    Conservatives complain that Trump doesn’t stand for anything, which means they won’t vote for him. Conservatives (some of them anyway) claim that the only conservative (I’m excluding Ben Carson here) that stand for anything is Cruz.

    As the conservatives have been shown (they still don’t get it) what conservatives believe, is not shared by voters, which is why their candidate is getting stomped by a candidate who isn’t a conservative.

    The reasons are obvious.

  20. Steve says:

    Still wrong, Nyp….on all of it.

    And Patrick is wrong about Trump’s supporters..

  21. Nyp says:

    You mean the death toll has gone up?

  22. Patrick says:

    Find something in my last post that I expressed about Trump supporters and win a prize.


  23. Steve says:


    This is what passes for stimulating, insightful political discussion with liberals stuck in their echo chamber like Patrick.

    Go get another sham plea.

    Trumps supporters are voters and I know several who are most certainly liberal.

  24. Steve says:

    Nyp, at the time I made that reply, there were 5 fatalities and that event has nothing at all to do with the Second amendment.

  25. Nyp says:

    Yeah, the fact that there have been 42 mass shootings in America since January 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with our gun freedoms.

  26. Rincon says:

    Let me ask the two of you:

    1) Do you feel background checks are worthwhile for all gun sales or should we allow the occasional crazy to purchase a major cache of weapons at his local retail store?

    2) Should the government attempt to put a ban on gun sales?

    3) Should the government confiscate all guns?

    Please humor me.

  27. Winston Smith says:

    DARPA, personally, I think it’s sickening that you glory in every mass shooting so you can “prove your point” about the 2nd Amendment.

    Also, pls link to your 42 mass shootings stat…

  28. Steve says:

    I second Winston’s motion.

  29. Steve says:

    Rincon, what is the price of perfection?

  30. nyp says:

    Can’t see why you are in such a snit. All those kids shot to death are the price we pay for freedom, amirite?


  31. Rincon says:

    Are my questions too hard to answer? And no Steve, I don’t consider that to be an answer. I know. They actually require you to commit to a set of beliefs. Easier to pick at the edges.

  32. Steve says:

    Now that news is coming out about the latest crazy idiot who was able to pass all the background checks and jump through the hoops….would any more of the same have prevented it?


    The other two haven’t a chance in hell, so they are not even considerable.

  33. Nyp says:

    “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”

  34. Steve says:

    And we have Nyp, quoting “The Onion”

    Funny bit, that.

  35. […] a CNN poll in October — at which time I asked: “What the hell are you thinking?” In an editorial this past week, I pointed out that Donald Trump has never been and is not a Republican. His core […]

  36. Rincon says:

    Trying to translate Steve’s typically obtuse response (please tell me if I’m putting words into your mouth), I gather that he believes that, since background checks cannot be perfect, there should be none at all. Do all of you agree with him?

    The reason I ask is because I don’t really know where most of you stand. The discussions tend to be nonspecific. Do Conservatives want no regulation at all or are some regulations appropriate?

  37. Steve says:

    Funny spin, Rincon.

    Lets look at it from your point of view, since current background checks don’t stop every incident;
    you are saying we should induce more restrictive background checks. Up to the point of completely disarming the citizenry.
    But it gets even better if we follow that path. Next come all knives,,,including kitchen knives. And get ready for the spork! After all, a fork can be used to stab someone to death….

    And all those tools in your garage? Were com’n for those dangerous devices too. Hammers and wrenches are way too dangerous to allow just anyone to own them….

    All those sharp corners in your house? Gotta smooth all those dangerous things out so no one can push someone into them, resulting in death.

    In fact, every home and every public building should be lined with padding to prevent anyone from ever pushing anyone else into a dangerously hard surface.

    Admit it, that is where you guys paths are taking us. No personal risks = no personal responsibility= no life.

  38. nyp says:

    Mass shootings as a means of fostering a sense of personal responsibility.

  39. Steve says:

    New word,


  40. Rincon says:

    “…you are saying we should induce more restrictive background checks.” Thanks for committing to a position, Steve. So far, you seem to be the only one with the cojones to show your position. I suspect most of us are closer to each other than we think, as is the case with you and me. I do not want more restrictive background checks. The ones we have now are just fine, except that we don’t enforce the law equally. A licensed dealer needs to do background checks. An unlicensed dealer does not. What’s with that?

    I don’t buy slippery slope arguments in most cases because the slippery slope can be applied to almost anything, but is rarely valid. It could easily be spun in the opposite direction by saying that if we remove our existing gun laws, then it will be legal for people to purchase shoulder fired missiles on a whim. Wouldn’t want that, would we?

  41. […] pointed this out in a newspaper editorial two weeks ago, when we said, “Trump has proposed huge tariffs on imported goods — similar […]

  42. […] has already flip-flopped like a flounder out of water, image what he will do […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s