Loser Trump cries foul when the rules don’t suit him

Ramirez cartoon from today’s IBD

Donald Trump again and again has shown himself to be nothing more than a simpering, sniveling, preposterous posturing popinjay and whining windbag who is too lazy to learn the rules of the game and then calls foul when others play by them.

After losing in Wisconsin Trump called Ted Cruz a Trojan Horse for the GOP establishment.

When Cruz swept the delegates at the Colorado state GOP convention, Trump tweeted, “The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians. Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!”

The Colorado Republican Party canceled its straw poll last August when the national party ruled straw polls must be binding.

But oblivious Trump tweeted moments later, “How is it possible that the people of the great State of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican Primary? Great anger — totally unfair!”

A Trump aide accused Cruz of using Gestapo tactics.

A Wall Street Journal editorial points out that “Cruz cleaned up in Colorado because his campaign was paying attention to the process. Whatever one thinks of the Texan’s appeal as a candidate, his campaign is organized and focused on winning the required 1,237 delegate majority. This speaks well of his ability to lead a complex organization.”

The editorial notes that Trump has been running a one-man show from his Boeing 757, relying on massive rallies and free media.

Speaking of fairness, Investor’s Business Daily points out editorially that the winner-take-all state rules have resulted in Trump winning only 37 percent of all the votes cast but has secured 45 percent of the delegates.

In Missouri it was announced today that Trump beat Cruz by just 0.2 percentage points — 40.9 percent to 40.7, but Trump gets 37 delegates to Cruz’s 15.

Those are the rules and nobody else is complaining about them. They knew the rules going in and are abiding by them. There’s no whining in politics.

IBD concludes, “If he can’t understand the challenges that he faces as a candidate or be flexible enough to respond to a shifting landscape, and if he can’t assemble the best and brightest people needed to win — no matter the rules — what does that say about his claims that he can do a great job running the country?”

To counter Trump’s whining about the rules, WSJ quoted an opinion from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.”

Scalia added that “party conventions, with their attendant ‘smoke-filled rooms’ and domination by party leaders, have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates.”

Smoke-filled rooms. Bring them back.

 

 

 

Advertisements

33 comments on “Loser Trump cries foul when the rules don’t suit him

  1. Patrick says:

    Thomas I thought you were a “transparency” guy?

    I mean, smoke filled rooms are designed to force the electorate to choose from only the choice that a very select pick for everyone else.

    Talk about letting the elite control the process.

  2. Transparency for government. Political parties are private entities and may handle things as they see fit. State legislators should not be able to dictate how they go about nominating candidates.

  3. Patrick says:

    Why is transparency for private entities bad though? And with a smoke filled room you still end up getting the guy a few people choose; isn’t that elitism at its best?

    Hard to believe you want this.

  4. Bill says:

    Political parties these days have very little power and anyone can self label themselves and seek office ostensibly bearing the banner of the political party they adopted. With no real mechanisms for enforcing discipline, political parties have no control over the candidates claiming their banner and little control over those who claim membership in the organization. Smoke filled rooms of party pols were, in some respects, more transparent than today’s intertwined and inter-meshed special interests who have become the puppet masters. Of course, Trump current whine is in conformance with his basic nature to either derogate, obfuscate or whine.

  5. Steve says:

    What the old style of choosing a political party nominee achieved were people who actually represented what that party stood for.

    What is happening today:
    They all look at the political “climate” for the “change”
    Then they use their own algorithms to decide what rate of success they might achieve.
    Stances are then adjusted to more appropriately “fit” current “climate change”.

    These candidates never actually reveal what they stand for, when we all find out it’s already too late….Obama.

    Transparency in government was what kept those people within a range of honesty (compared to the blatant, in your face liars we have today)

    It is easy to see why those “smoke filled rooms” produced better candidates who were readily held to their party’s ideals and goals.

    Today many liberals are very frustrated with Obama and even more so with Clinton. Saying things like “at least she is a Democrat, we simply cannot allow THEM to take the Whitehouse!” THEM being those dirty bums, the Republicans.
    Sadly, today’s Liberal simply does not see that, although Democrats and Republicans use different words and claim to have different goals and ideals, what either actually produce (once in office) remains absolutely identical….Romneycare.

    Isay open primaries and let things land where they may or closed doors and smoke filled rooms.

  6. Bill says:

    I substantially agree with you. The two caucuses that I attended were wastes of time and effort.

  7. Patrick says:

    Silly.

    What smoke filled rooms spewed out was what the few kingmakers at the top decided. What a joke it is to hear anyone contend otherwise; it’s the very purpose OF a smoke filled room.

    And if transparency keeps people on public office honest, and honesty is worthwhile, why not for those in the private sector?

  8. Steve says:

    Patrick tries to make this about something other than what it is.

    Smoke filled rooms produced people closely aligned with the party the nominee represented.

    Voters then had the opportunity to choose based on fact rather than shifting stances based on changing climates.

    Privacy is for the private sector, not the public sector.

  9. Patrick says:

    Smoke filled room produce exactly what the few elites decide they produce; doesn’t reflect anything more than what those few decide.

    And the question is:

    If transparency in the public sector is “good” because it produces “honesty”, why is it less than good in the private sector?

  10. Steve says:

    You neglected to read the complete contextual statement.
    Once those people are chosen by those private political parties, the voters get to make decisions based on fact, rather than the smoke you want to blow in our faces, Patrick.

    Again, privacy is for the private sector, not for the public sector.

  11. Patrick says:

    A vote for an individual selected by an elite few is a meaningful vote? What kind of commie crap is that? I mean, when the Russians did that people in this country shrieked, and justifiably so, that it was tyranny.

    And again, WHY is transparency not as worthwhile for the private sector?

  12. Rincon says:

    First, let me point out the obvious. For well over 100 years, only Democrats and Republicans have won the Presidency and both houses of Congress – and it’s not because we love them so much. This is a duopoly and gives them as competitors, nearly total control of the federal government. If two candidates are picked by the power makers, then the voters only have a realistic choice between two handpicked candidates for most races. This isn’t far from Iran’s system. They also get to elect officials from a list of approved candidates.

    Your distinction between the “private” political parties and the governmental officials their candidates become once elected is strictly theoretical. If the power brokers, whoever they are, get to select the candidates, the election is only a matter of which power broker got to choose the person that takes office.

    Instant runoff voting would allow third parties to have successful campaigns, but you’ll never see it because of the death grip the two parties have on the power structure.

  13. Steve says:

    “A vote for an individual selected by an elite few is a meaningful vote?”

    Show me where I said that. You ASSume people MUST vote for people chosen by the major parties…..note the descriptor based on your ASSumption.

    Again, privacy is for the private sector, not for the public sector. And to reiterate, you are trying to change the subject.

  14. Steve says:

    Rincon, there are no longer two parties. They are one and the same today.

    Some people refuse to see it.

  15. Patrick says:

    Someone point out ANYWHERE that I said you MUST vote for a candidate chosen by a select few and win a prize.

    And, since NO ONE has said WHY it is that transparency is “good” for the public sector but other than “good” for the private sector, I suppose that answers my question.

  16. Steve says:

    Knew you couldn’t show it.

    concession, noted.

  17. The main point remains the same…Dirty Donald whines & spews all manner of subterfuge, lies and innuendo when he loses because of his incompetence in knowing and following the rules (as in Colorado)…but crows like a banty rooster when the rules (he is ignorant of) end up favoring him when he wins (as in Missouri). The Cruz organization and it’s ground game continues to run rings around him. If Colorado wants to run it’s nominating convention unconventionally…it’s their prerogative to do just that…federalism at it’s purist (the RNC…the national party, sharing power and responsibilities with the state party mechanisms)! It might be messy…but ultimately it works. And it’s high time to invoke Chris LeDoux’s five dollar fine for whining to the Trumpster!

  18. Anonymous says:

    I spoke with my nephew who lives in Colorado. He said on March 1st the precinct caucus was held to vote for the delegates. The CO state party decided not to have a presidential preference poll because the RNC said CO would be bound to support the winner at the national convention. CO decided they did not want the RNC to have this control over the states delegation. At the March 1st caucus, anyone interested in being a delegate or voting for the delegates to the regional (larger pcts.) and state convention was asked to attend. His wife attended the caucus. The delegate count allotted to a precinct was based on the number of registered republicans for that pct. There were more slots allotted than people wanting to be delegates in most pcts. The people wanting to be delegates gave a speech stating their qualifications and who they would support if chosen to go to the national convention. He said Trump actually lost the delegates at the March 1st caucus. For his precinct, no one showed up in support of Trump, Kasich had 2 supporters, and 1 person was still supporting Ben Carson. Everyone else supported Cruz, and the people in attendance elected all Cruz delegates to go to the state convention. At the state convention, Cruz was the only candidate that showed up and spoke. Trump had no organization in the state and no one to get his people to the caucuses on March 1st or to the state convention.

    This is not much different then what we have done in Nevada. We had a presidential poll, but we also had a separate delegate selection after the presidential poll. I have not heard Trump complaining that Nevada was rigged since he got the most delegates.

  19. Bill says:

    If one can not see the distinction between the public and the private sector then there is no explanation possible.

  20. bc says:

    I can understand the longing for the “smoke filled room” filled with folks that have the best interest of the party and thus the country at heart. Smoke filled rooms are another name for Machine politics and watching the Machine here at work in Illinois I can tell you that there is nothing good about machine style politics. The corruption, cost, lack of accountability and poor quality of politicians that come from smoke filled rooms, you can have it. Give me an open, wild, election system any day. And if the price is a carnival barker as the party nominee then so be it. Better for the party to loose the election and do some serious soul searching on why.

  21. Anonymous says:

    If one can’t explain how transparency is good for the public sector, but somehow other than good for the private sector, one ought to think some more before saying anything.

  22. Steve says:

    If one cannot (or simple refuses) to understand the difference between the public and private sectors, then no explanation will ever be possible.

  23. Rincon says:

    Medicare is in the public sector and insurance companies are in the private sector, yet there is considerable overlap in the rules each must follow. In particular, medical privacy rules are the same for both. Sometimes, the job being done is more important than the sector it is in.

  24. Steve says:

    You example of medical insurance schemes is apt but medical privacy applies equally to all people and is not an institutional transparency issue. I trust even Patrick would agree a persons medical situation should remain sacrosanct and out of reach of anyone that person does not wish to allow access.
    Should that not be the case, then I trust Patrick would put his entire medial history, in full detail, online and accessible to the general public.
    This would be a good way to for Patrick to show his undying faith in private sector transparency.

  25. Patrick says:

    What’s transparent is that people arguing for public transparency because its good but against private transparency because…well no one has said, buts assume that it’s because they believe that it’s other than good, are just hypocrites.

  26. Patrick says:

    Oh, and of course those people arguing for public transparency will argue that issues involving the military or maybe even subjects as broad as “national security” aren’t subject to the same….principle.

    LOL

  27. Steve says:

    Funny, Patrick, you simply went 180 out of my example.

    As usual there things that prove the rule.
    The need for private sector transparency is proven by military secrecy just as the need for public sector transparency is proven by personal medical records.

  28. Patrick says:

    Any call for transparency except for….is hypocritical. Any denial of the need for privacy, except for…is also hypocritical.

  29. Steve says:

    Then own it, Patrick.

    Post your pay records, your tax returns, medical insurance and medical records in a public place for the whole world to see…..include you social security number and home address.

    Remember, it’s all in the name of transparency for the private sector.

  30. Rincon says:

    The benefits of transparency or privacy aren’t simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker. In public office, should all private discussions between the President and say, the Secretary of State be available to the public? It’s not always wise to tip off our strategies to other nations. The same is obvious for the military. In the private sector, should an employer be allowed to subject prospective employees to a background check? How about a landlord? Should Mossack Fonseca be allowed to sue the press for violating it’s privacy and that of their clients? How about the scientists whose privacy was violated in the Climategate controversy? How about a Muslim running a let’s say, “radical” Web site?

    If it’s fine for a cop to be required to wear a camera while on duty, what’s wrong with requiring politicians to do the same? Dogcatchers? How about doctors? What if medicine becomes socialized? Does that change your answer?

  31. Steve says:

    Some people are trying to defend public sector privacy by demanding private sector transparency.

    I say those people should own what they say. Put up or shut up.

  32. Patrick says:

    I say people wanting public transparency and private privacy should shut up.

  33. Steve says:

    Substance free

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s