Stupid things allegedly smart people say, RNC convention edition

(This is Part Two, Part One was here.)

"How the GOP could Dump Trump in Cleveland":

Do we think that the Republican Party will ditch presumptive nominee Donald Trump at its convention in July and select someone else to replace him — a notion that seems to be catching on among conservatives and commentators in the wake of Trump’s controversial remarks about the Mexican-American judge overseeing his Trump University suit?

No, we do not.

And yet, if there were ever an election weird and wild enough to make such a switcheroo possible — just barely — 2016 would be it.

Cleveland is a long way away. A lot can happen between now and then. So what would have to happen to make “Dump Trump” a reality?

To give our fellow convention fanatics something to fantasize about for the next 40 days, Unconventional has assembled a step-by-step instruction manual for dumping Trump. If any of these steps are skipped, the whole chain reaction fizzles out. But if every one of them is completed, there is still a chance — a very, very slim chance — that Donald Trump won’t be competing against Hillary Clinton in fall.

Tenuous and ignorant premises out of the way early; on to the jokes.

Step One: Trump keeps saying offensive stuff

Trump has said plenty of objectionable things since launching his campaign last summer: the Mexicans-are-rapists thing, the John-McCain-isn’t-a-war-hero thing, the Muslims-should-be-barred-from-entering-the-U.S. thing, and so on.

But the Judge Curiel-can’t-do-his-job-because-he’s-of-Mexican descent thing is the first toxic thing that Trump has said since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee. The content may be similar, but the context is very different. Before, during the primaries, Republican leaders could brush off Trump’s remarks. He’s not my candidate, they could say. Maybe the voters will still reject him. And if not, he’ll probably grow up in time for the general.

Back then, Trump didn’t represent the GOP. Now he does. So now whenever Trump says something offensive, other Republicans have to choose: Do I defend this? Or do I denounce it? Hiding isn’t an option anymore.

As we’ve seen over the last week, the risk of guilt by association has dramatically lowered the GOP’s tolerance for Trump’s most distasteful remarks.

“ ‘Bigot, bigot, bigot. Racist. Racist Racist,’ ” said influential conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt Wednesday, recapping the morning’s headlines. “The Republican National Committee needs to step in and step up, and go see Donald Trump and tell him to get out of the race.”

Hugh Hewitt bailing out is huge.  Yuuuuuuuuge. 

Step Two: Trump’s poll numbers plummet

Right now, Trump is trailing Clinton by only 3.8 percentage points, on average, in the general-election polls. That’s reasonable. To be expected. He’s still “well within striking distance,” as they say.

But what happens if Trump’s numbers go into a free fall and Clinton starts to pull away? What if she crosses the 50-percent threshold and he plunges into the 30s? What if the gap between them widens — to five points, 10 points, 15 points?

Somebody else who does not understand how the Electoral College works.

This is key. 

This is not key.  Popular vote percentages -- you know, the same ones that Berners use to say that Sanders should be nominated over Hillary because he beats Trump -- might be the excuse the GOP uses to try to defenestrate their popularly elected nominee, but most DC electeds understand that's not how a president gets chosen.  And the EC numbers are grim already.

The major problem with dumping Trump is political.  It looks like GOP elites are conspiring to deny the will of GOP voters — the most galling offense imaginable in a year that’s been all about the voters denying the will of the elites.

But Trump’s plummeting poll numbers would provide objective evidence that actual voters agree with party leaders that he’s gone too far. The GOP would start to fear a down-ballot disaster. More Republicans would jump ship. Combined with a series of Curiel-like controversies, a sickening slide in Trump’s public-opinion stats might establish a new anti-Trump argument that doesn’t ask rank-and-file Republicans to reject the nominee just because establishment types like Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are doing it: Trump had his chance. Now he’s tanking — and he’s taking the party with him. 

So if you were wondering where Ted Cruz has been all this time ...

Step Three: Someone else steps up

Mitt Romney refused. Ben Sasse begged off. James Mattis said no sir. Even David French — a bald, bearded conservative lawyer that no one had ever heard of — decided against it.

You can’t fault the #NeverTrump movement for lack of effort. But so far, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and his anti-Donald cronies have been unable to convince anybody to take on Trump.

For the whole “Dump Trump” scheme to work, this would have to change. As Curly Haugland, a member of the convention Rules Committee from North Dakota, recently told the New York Times, “In order to have a contested convention, we need to have contestants.”

Some Republican politicians are starting to signal their interest in a convention challenge. As Yahoo Senior Political Correspondent Jon Ward reported (last) week, conservatives are increasingly mentioning Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker as a “possible replacement.” RedState reported (a week ago) that there are “rumors” that Walker is “open” to such an outcome. One of Ward’s sources said that Walker, who mounted a brief bid for the 2016 GOP nomination, has told those working to find an alternative that he would be willing to step up at the convention if Trump continues to implode.

The likeliest substitute, however, would be someone who can already claim considerable support among the convention delegates. Ted Cruz comes to mind. Right now, he has 559 delegates to Trump’s 1,542. But remember: Many of the delegates now pledged to Trump were loyal to Cruz (or some other candidate) first.

For his part, Cruz has kept his options open, refusing to endorse Trump and suggesting that if he sees “a viable path to victory” in the future, he “will certainly respond accordingly.”

“I am looking and listening and watching the candidates,” Cruz told CNN earlier this week. “I’m doing the same thing millions of voters are doing and … time will tell.”

"Now for the fun part", the piece continues.  I'll pass; you go on ahead.  Hint: the GOP/RNC has to rewrite their rules.  How many Trumpeters do you think will take that lying down?

Go back to the top and read the part where they wrote, 'if any of these steps are skipped, the whole chain reaction fizzles out'.  And then read this again: 'But if every one of them is completed, there is still a chance — a very, very slim chance — that Donald Trump won’t be competing against Hillary Clinton in fall.'

No.  Just no.  And it has nothing to do with guns, or responsible gun safety legislation (which is the third rail of GOP political viability).

Sorry you had to waste five minutes reading all that.  I just document the atrocities, folks; I can't really influence them too much.

How you know Bernie's already conceded

This Weak with George Snufflelufagus may have been pre-empted in your market for coverage of the Orlando tragedy, so if you missed this, take note.

The Vermont senator also plans to meet with Clinton Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda.

On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Sanders said he and Clinton will discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."

"What I need to see [is] a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," Sanders said.

"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country." 

Sanders is done, y'all.  Fought the good fight and all that happy horseshit, but now he's tired and he wants to go to bed.  All that's left to negotiate is his severance package.  Vice-president?  I doubt it.  Senate Majority Leader?  Kinda laughable, to say nothing of that blogger's command of the English language.

Some party platform BS, BS?  Yeah, he'll take that.  A tax increase, though?  In the words* of Hillary Clinton, 'you gotta be shitting me, old man'.

Over to you, Bern Unit.

*Paraphrasing slightly.

Whose fault is it again?

It was the worst act of terrorism on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, and the deadliest attack on a gay target in the nation’s history, though officials said it was not clear whether some victims had been accidentally shot by law enforcement officers.

It's a hate crime against gays.  No, wait: it's radical Islamist terrorism -- and that means it's Obama's fault; after all, he sort of predicted it less than two weeks ago, AND Ted Cruz and Donald Trump both said so.  They're probably not altogether wrong about that, either; is this sick enough for you yet?  I just hope the president doesn't say "that's not who we are", because it's precisely who we are.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” (Drumpf) wrote. “I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

'Smart' is just not going to be possible for you and your ilk, Don.  Ever.  What's your Plan B?

I'm still #FuckTheNRA, personally.

The vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Go ahead take a look, then filter it through the reality of the same old politicos posting the same meaningless #ThoughtsandPrayers on their social media accounts while they deposit another check from Wayne LaPierre.  Keep in mind that, like Dan Patrick, some people believe their thoughts and prayers were answered when more than a hundred Latinos/as, many of them LGBT, were struck down by bullets early yesterday morning.

As an atheist, my question is: why do you want to worship such a god as that?

Want to read more Tweets like that one above?  Here you go.

Not bothered enough yet?

Some Hillbots thought it would be primo to take a shot at Bernie Sanders over his gun policy.  And some Sandernistas fired right back with a full clip at Hillary:

“This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

But those “weapons of war” have been used on the streets of Iraq and in midnight raids on the civilian population in the war there that Hillary so ardently backed.

Does she even grasp what she is saying?  She is saying that it is an atrocity to use such weapons on Americans – but not on the brown people, civilians in their homes, in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East and North Africa in U.S. wars of aggression and the occupation.   To be horrified by the use of those weapons on Americans but not on Arabs qualifies as racism of the basest sort.

Not ugly enough for you yet?  Want more?

Sorry but I can't take any more.  Here's some Onion-style satire, this is my stop.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA (The Nil Admirari) - Today, a number of Americans and corporate news outlets were not intentionally being sarcastic when they described the latest mass shooting in the United States as "unbelievable" and "shocking."

"This is unbelievable. This kind of thing never happens in the United States," said Mandy Hammer, who awoke this morning from a coma she had been in for over fifty years.

The corporate media in the United States routinely used the word "shocking" to characterize yet another mass shooting in America, which boasted a historic body count.

Maxwell Keene, a Harvard University English professor, told TNA he was unaware of changes to the English language that would make either word appropriate to use.

A press release by the National Rifle Association informed Americans more guns would fix the epidemic of gun violence in America.

Congress confirmed any meaningful gun control remained hopelessly out of reach.​ 

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance mourns with Orlando and the nation as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff wants everyone to remember that Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick stand with Donald Trump, now and always.

Socratic Gadfly takes a week off from looking at politics to note his general support for science writer John Horgan and his critique of the current skepticism movement.

Video taken at the scene of the Pearsall Energy Center by TXsharon at Bluedaze indicates that Denton's air quality is indeed being made worse by the facility, despite the company's claims.

Texas Vox passes along a link to the remarks by the National Transportation Safety Board's former chair, who said (in the understatement of the year) that transporting crude oil by rail is just not a good idea.

Worn out from Texas' never-changing political climate, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs takes a look at Ohio, which is going to be a battleground state for both the White House and the Senate.

Egberto Willies updates the ongoing saga of the Humble ISD parents who are trying to save their kids from a dysfunctional school superintendent.

Before taking a break, South Texas Chisme takes note of the location recommended by Cong. Filemon Vela to Donald Trump regarding where he could put his border wall.

Neil at All People Have Value walked the streets of Houston with his sign regarding the value of long-term relationships in our often short-term society. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

================

Grit for Breakfast spots another incomprehensible SCOTX ruling: illegal searches are OK in asset forfeiture cases.

Protests against Donald Trump  when he visits Dallas this week may also target the restaurant hosting him because of their large number of Mexican employees, according to Trail Blazers.

Swamplot reports that the toxicology studies on the San Jacinto River's waste pits are on hold until the river's floodwaters recede.

It's not 'terror' so much as it is rage, says Prairie Weather.

Zachery Taylor says if you're taking any prescription medication, you might Google the name of it and the words 'lawsuit' or 'legal settlement'.

Robert Rivard urges investment in mass transit in San Antonio.

Kriston Capps observes that if Texas had spent as much on flood mitigation in recent years as it has spent on toll roads, we'd have far fewer floods.

Better Texas Blog notes how incredibly difficult it is to qualify for Medicaid in Texas.

BOR cheers the nomination of a Democratic presidential candidate who supports repealing the odious Hyde amendment.

Nancy Sims pauses to review history and the centuries-long fight for women's rights.

The Makeshift Academic examines whether transitional insurance plans are driving losses on state exchanges.

The Rag Blog's Dave Zirin eulogizes Muhammad Ali.

And Somervell County Salon's summer project has been building a new dog shelter.