South Dakota’s Republican Presidential delegates who are willing to express a preference rebuffed a pitch from a John Kasich campaigner at their March 19 caucus and uniformly told MSNBC that they back Ted Cruz.
For now, Cruz can take heart that even if South Dakota votes for Trump in June — binding nearly all 29 delegates to back the New York billionaire on the first ballot — the delegates signaled they’re with him at heart.
“I have a preference for Cruz,” said Matt Bruner, a Republican precinct chairman from White. “Right now, seeing Kasich in there — Kasich is in the race for nothing other than a hope and prayer. … It’s very, very much a Cruz delegation” [Kyle Cheney, “Shadow Campaign to Deny Trump His Delegates Begins,” Politico, 2016.03.24].
But then yesterday, evidently in response to a call from MSNBC, GOP delegate Bruner makes this public post on Facebook:
Change of heart? Satire? Toying with the media? Or just more of what we would expect to hear from a Trumped-up Republican Party?
His belligerence got him blocked from my social media sites. Deep racism oozing from that comment. The guy lives in such a small isolated world. Imagine what he has to say about natives.
Who hit like on his comment?
Uncomfortable with that kind of verbiage, Hickey? Sorry for you, but that is what many of us have come to expect and all we expect from the party of family values and kristian morals.
Another GOP party racist coming out of the shadows.
This Bruner guy is a big bully who has a lot in common with the hate baiting by Trump. He doesn’t respect other people that are different then him. He truly does live in a small isolated world, as Mr. Hickey said. I pity him.
Bruner is a follower of Cruz and apparently agrees with Cruz that we should “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods in the US, as if the 3 million American Muslims could be segregated and monitored separately from other citizens.
What Cruz and this Bruner idiot don’t seem to understand is that proposals to treat Muslims differently here in the US would be a victory for the terrorists and play right into their hands. Apparently Cruz and his ilk haven’t figured out that ISIS is trying to make this a war between Islam and the West. If you lump all Muslims into one basket and say we need to patrol and secure their neighborhoods here in the US you are validating the terrorist rhetoric that the US is at war with Islam.
Cruz and Bruner are so partisan that they will gladly hand the terrorists propaganda victories in order to attack Obama and rally the xenophobic element in their midst. Obama’s strategy to refuse to play into the terrorists hands is smart and prudent.
I saw Ted Cruz last night compare bombing Iraq during our war with Iraq and our bombing of Isis. He thought that since we were only going on thirty bombing missions a day against ISIS that does not compare well to our 1100 sorties a day when we invaded Iraq. Of course, the moderator noted the differences between fighting a conventional war against a large country in the Middle East with thousands of military targets and the unconventional war against a rag-tag ISIS military often embedded with civilian targets. Cruz did not care about the truth. You could see it in his eyes that he knew he was making a false comparison. He simply wanted to make the President look bad.
It is fortunate that Bruner and people like him often do such a great job of making themselves look foolish and ignorant that no one else has to make them look the part.
And the SDGOP felt this guy was a good enough representation to make him a delegate? Are you serious??? Too bad we can’t see the names of the three people who thought his comment was worthy of “liking” it.
Shameful.
His profile is public (for now): https://www.facebook.com/edgebruner?fref=ts
I’m guessing he was “playing with the media”, as a way to stick it to the left-leaning MSNBC. Not the best way to go about it, though. Stupid is as stupid does.
Yes, he was “playing with the media”, but to put that racist rhetoric out there even in jest is in seriously bad taste, to say the least. If you look through the rest of his facebook pages you can see where his mindset is. It is not pretty.
I think you may have missed this racist’s point Darin. The derogatory term he used is directed at Cruz. He’s not a Cruz supporter.
Looks like Hickey is going Dominion Theology again:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/ted-cruzs-campaign-is-fueled-by-a-dominionist-vision-for-america-commentary/2016/02/04/86373158-cb6a-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_story.html
What do you think Mr. Sibson? Is Mr. Bruner a despicable racist or your kind of guy?
Ror- Brunner says he is a supporter of Cruz and the whole sd Republican delegation supports Cruz according to Brunner. He was not trying to smear Cruz with his racist comment about Cruz. He was trying to be funny and ridicule the media with mock hysteria. However, when it is hard to tell that somebody is not a racist, that does not speak highly of them. And to joke about such a sensitive issue right now shows the guy has no common sense.
Darin, Cross, your interpretation of Bruner’s intent is plausible. I’ve occasionally done something similar, using the opposition’s derogatory words for homosexuals or racial minorities or other groups to highlight my opponents’ bigotry or ignorance. Even that requires caution. Bruner, however, if he is making fun, goes a tricky step deeper: he uses the words that he imagines his opponents expect him to use in order to tweak his opponents. He may think he’s baiting us liberals, but he’s hanging a sign around his own neck that he’s going to have to explain away over and over.
You’d think a simple “No comment” would suffice, but that doesn’t really rile the base sufficiently. Or, perhaps he made up his response after the fact, but wanted to sound cool in front of his friends. Not sure if there’ll be repercussions, but hopefully there’s something to the ol’ “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!” adage.
Or perhaps Bruner says one thing in public when the media is watching, and an entirely different thing when he thinks nobody is paying attention. I don’t know the guy, so I can’t say which of his two statements is the real Mr. Bruner.
However you slice it, using a racial slur isn’t very becoming. This should be embarrassing for him, and for the SDGOP, but something tells me they won’t even bother to react to it.
This GOP presidential race is certainly bringing out the worst in people. Neither leading GOP candidate is presidential material. Regardless of whether Bruner is for Lyin’ Ted or Lyin’ Donald he’s for some lyin’ prick who either wants to abandon what makes America great or start/escalate wars all over the world. Any mainstream GOP voter ought to be ashamed of what his/her party has become – and it’s still getting worse. Bruner is part of the problem.
“Is Mr. Bruner a despicable racist or your kind of guy?”
Yes, he is as much a racist as you white haters.
My position is that we are all one race…the human race.
mo·ron
ˈmôrˌän/
nouninformal
a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, a “Bruner”,etc.
I’ll take Bruner at his word or words.
Sibson,
Some of my best friends are white people.
Sibson contends that we are all one race, but contradicts himself by saying we are “white” haters. He clearly distinguishes color.
Wow. I really hope you commentators never read the Onion. Satire is at its finest when fools not only swallow it whole, but when they regurgitate it. Read the blogs original post. Even the blogger recognizes it. Sincerely Me, laughing all the way.
A few other things,
Hickey doesn’t like that I call out his hypocrisy after sitting in his pews and watching him in the legislature.
I am very much a Cruz supporter, have been since Jindal and Walker dropped out.
I really could care less what race or religion you are. If you get up, do your job, and don’t believe in killing me, I’m pretty sure we can get along. If you don’t, I will call you on it.
And lastly, I’m not embarrassed at all by your reactions. Enjoy your tolerance.
Dude is an enigma, one minute trashing minorities, the next thing playing with cats & dining with dignitaries.
Should have a reporter specifically assigned to him at the convention. He’ll probably be out bull whipping Trump protesters.
Lyin’ Ted, lyin’ Donald? Your front runner right now is Hillary Clinton. You want to talk about lying?
The sad part is, she will be elected, because liberals like yourselves are attracted by freebies. You vote for the candidate who will pass out gold stars and “accept” everyone for who they are and how they feel, at the expense of hardworking Americans.
Racist comments are not right, but maybe read your responses before posting. Many of you need to look in a mirror. Don’t worry, you won’t have to buy one, Hillary and Bernie will get it for you.
That guy won’t last 10 minutes in Cleveland. The culture shock will have him whimpering in his hotel room watching Deliverance so he feels at home.
There is nothing that comes out of Matt Bruner’s mouth that would surprise me. What surprises me is that he is a delegate. What a poor choice by the GOP to represent SD. Enjoy all the freebee’s on your trip of a lifetime, Matt.
Sature is at its finest, Matt, when it makes its point and does not rebound in its performer. You need to be good at it to call it satire.
But this sounds familiar. Dear readers, can you find other instances where conservatives say something offensive, then try to explain their way out of it by saying they were just kidding?
Now we need to get clear on your explanation, Matt. If you were just committing satire, then you’re telling us that you actually reject the idea that Muslims and Mexicans are responsible for America’s problems, that you reject the accusations that Ted Cruz is a Canadian-born citizen not eligible for the Presidency, and that you recognize that “spic” is an offensive racial epithet that responsible Republicans should not use… right?
Simple but effective parsing of Steve, Roger!
I’m thinking ignorant people of all stripes besot the the country. I do agree, I think, with Mr. Bruner that way too many immigrants are coming into this country. It ain’t the 1890’s, we’ve run out of treaties to break and there just ain’t dern near the nearly-free land like there was.
free land. that’s a good one.
Greg, do I know you? Because you seem to believe you know me.
To answer your questions Cory, I believe in the rule of law, we don’t generally need more legislation, we need to enforce what we already have. That by definition is the job of the Executive. I gladly welcome immigrants who come here legally. I work with some who are the type of people who made America great. However, those who are here illegally, have committed a criminal act. Whether they are from Mexico or English.
Regarding Muslims, I will use the words of a Muslim friend of mine. “There are bad people of every religion, but when you immigrate without being willing to assimilate you are not welcome.” If you come here to attack us, or to subvert our laws and set up your own, you are not welcome.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to American citizens, he is, and always has been a U.S. citizen.
Lastly, when political incorretness (spic) in satire so greatly offends you that you rush to calling me a racist without any knowledge of me, you may want to reconsider the depths of your reasoning.
So Matt. Do you believe, as Cruz does, that law enforcement should patrol Muslim neighborhoods and should we carpet bomb the Mideast?
Matt, your comment raises some interesting concerns.
First, only about half of the immigrants here without valid paperwork have committed a crime, since entering the country lawfully and overstaying your Visa is not a crime.
Second, for those immigrants who have committed a crime by unlawfully crossing the border, the policy question becomes what is the sanction for the unlawful act? Rounding up people who are living and working here who have committed a single crimes – unlawful entry, tearing their families apart, and forcibly shipping them thousands of miles away from their adopted homes seems a bit over the top, wouldn’t you agree?
Third, while we all agree that we do not want people to attack us, regardless of their religion, doesn’t our system of government protect everyone’s right to subvert (i.e change) our laws and set up their own laws? Indeed, isn’t that exactly what the pro-life/anti-choice people are doing – subverting a woman’s constitutional right to privacy in family planning by adopting new laws that severely limit that constitutional right and by bringing test cases in an effort to get the Supreme Court to overrule Roe and eliminate our right of privacy in family planning matters? Why should this type of advocacy be permitted to one religion but denied to others of a different religion?
Finally, although Ted Cruz is a citizen, doesn’t the Constitution require more to be President? And I am sure you will agree that by adding the phrase “natural born” to the citizen requirement must mean something different than merely being born a citizen.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/11/laurence-tribe-ted-cruz-donald-trump-citizen-president
Admittedly, Harvard Professor Tribe leans to the left, yet a review of his sources seems to make it clear that the legal history of “natural born” may well disqualify anyone from either party that was born on foreign soil to an American mother. Indeed, wasn’t that the exact argument of those on the right when they claimed Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii?
Satire should be applied with the precision of a stiletto, not by the bludgeoning of a sledge hammer. Typical Kraut humor.
Exactly JT, if you have to continually explain your satire, it is not satire.
It looks as if the Muslim communities can patrol their own neighborhoods thank you very much. I guess they just got a little tired of the hate being directed their way. Here ya go Matt and may you have a great meet to decide if your candidate is Trump or Castro or maybe that other disingenuous gal hater from Ohio. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/armed-hate-group-backs-out-of-texas-mosque-protest-when-faced-with-gun-toting-worshipers/ Looks like two can play at this game. Obama is on his way out of office so there may be a different tone in how things are done regarding different communities, the NRA opened a Pandora’s box with this open carry nonsense as we are beginning to see.
Let’s see,
I believe law enforcement should look wherever the crime is most likely to come from. You don’t look for bank fraud at the grocery store, or cattle rustling in NYC. It would be foolish not to look for Islamic terrorists among the Islamic community.That’s not profiling, it’s good police work. And yes, if the IRA restarts a bombing campaign, I expect my church to be looked at for radicals.
I’m quite certain that Cruz, nor anyone else, wants to “carpet bomb the mideast.” However, I am ok with total destruction of ISIS bases etc. I’m willing to accept the fever if it kills the virus.
If you are a non-citizen in the US without proper identification, you have committed a crime. It is illegal to enter unlawfully, remain past your paperwork, or work here without paperwork. In my mind, they are trespassing and committing theft of the goods and services of the people of the United States.
No, you do not have the right set up a government entity or alternate government (sharia courts) that operates outside the United States Constitution.
Judiciary review says that people born abroad to citizen parents are natural born citizens.
I guess we can expect Matt to be that vigilante that goes after the robberies by his party right here in South Dakota as he notes. Where will Matt carpet bomb? Will he start a Pierre? Will Matt transfer Sharia Court with the kangaroo court system of Jackley? Will Matt waterboard Joop? Will he short sheet Marion Rounds? Who knows what goes through the minds of those that speak the hate.
Matt, you certainly are entitled to your opinion on policy matters, but it might be helpful if you based your opinions on fact.
First, while entering the country improperly is a misdemeanor, overstaying immigrant paperwork is simply not a crime. Recently, bills have been introduced to make this a misdemeanor but to the best of my knowledge no such bills have been enacted into law.
http://www.law360.com/articles/673848/immigration-bill-roundup-visa-crimes-detention-quotas
And are you saying Cruz is lying when he says he wants to “carpet bomb” the mideast?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-isis-carpet-bomb-strategy-2016-1
And, regardless of your personal views about Sharia law, wouldn’t you agree that under our Constitution the people could choose to elect a Muslim majority in Congress? And if that Muslim majority voted to repeal laws they disagreed with and voted enact different laws more to their liking, isn’t that the American way?
I am not sure what you mean by “judiciary review,” but I am pretty sure that there has not been a definitive SCOTUS ruling that someone born to American parents in another country qualifies as a “natural born” citizen. Neal Katyal & Paul Clement argue in the Harvard Law Forum that anyone born in another country to American parents is a natural born” citizen, but they did not and probably cannot identify a controlling SCOTUS decision to support their argument.
The most recent SCOTUS decision addressing the question (that I am aware of) ruled, in effect, that Congress has the constitutional power to decide whether and how someone born outside the US to an American parent can become a US citizen. This certainly supports the argument that someone born outside the USA is not a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. Instead, he becomes a citizen if and only if he complies with the statutory requirements that Congress has adopted.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
I’m curious if Matt Bruner was a “birther” back when the Obama birth certificate was such a controversy for the far right.
I’m thinking it is kind of like when Daschle was being considered for VP and they changed the law here in SD to preclude keeping your senate seat if you run for vice-president. Then, the Republicans in Pierre–where hypocrisy is no obstacle as long as you are partisan when going about it–changed the law back to suit John Thune in case he wanted to be a VP candidate.
People can change their minds, Mr. Larson. Like the teacher’s union who was all so happy this year to get a new tax to suit them. I bet you a gravy-laden breakfast they’ll be back grubbing for more next year. They will have “changed their minds.”
Grudz, are you saying we shouldn’t increase funding for education next year? I would think the teachers would want a raise next year and deserve a raise next year just like everybody else.
Grudz, I’ll bet you that breakfast that the Republicans will increase spending on all manner of state government next year. One exception might be oversight costs, because as long as you have all Republicans in control of Pierre, corruption, er, I mean government tends to run itself!
I’m saying we should increase funding at the level accorded by law, Mr. Larson. No more special treatment until the whining stops.
Yes, Grudz, the schools can look forward to an increase of 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. Then, after schools pay for increased health insurance costs and whatever else inflation drives up that is not well-reflected in the CPI, teachers can look forward to maybe a 2% raise. Whoopee, we’ll tell them not to spend it all in one place!
Note Matt’s word games in avoiding direct answers to my question. He does not disavow his statement that Muslims and Mexicans are ruining our country. He cites one undocumentable quote from a questionable source to support his believe that at least some Muslims are here to attack us and defends unconstitutional racist surveillance activity. He maintains the brilliant tautology that illegal immigration is a crime, but he doesn’t explain how that crime ruins the country. And he refuses to acknowledge that “spic” is an offensive racial epithet, instead saying that those who take offense are obviously made of weaker stuff than he is.
So it wasn’t really satire—Matt appears to be saying here that he meant the things he said, not as satire, but as an attack on our political and moral positions.
Matt adds the unforced error of defending Cruz for President by trying to tell us that Ted Cruz doesn’t mean the words he actually says (“carpet bomb“). Let me guess: saying that we should elect a man who doesn’t mean the things he says is just more clever political satire, right, Matt?
Isn’t Cruz the one that’s been screwing around on the wife? Five women came forward or something like that I heard the other day.
Cory, I’d hate to go to a comedy club with you and your friends. Poor guy on stage couldn’t tell a mother in law joke without you being offended.
Cory, I’d hate to go to a comedy club with you and your friends. Poor guy on stage couldn’t tell a mother in law joke without you being offended.”
Like it or not no truer words were ever spoken.
The Blindman
bruner is sgt. Schultz saying in stilted german: “non-citizen in the US without proper identification, you have committed a crime”.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), noting the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, said because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state law requiring “credible and reliable” identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
in a video game if “the papers are in order for the purpose of keeping undesirable individuals such as terrorists, wanted criminals, or smugglers out of the country[,w]hen discrepancies are discovered, the player may interrogate the applicant about the discrepancy,demand further information such as fingerprints or a full body scan in order to clear the discrepancy, find proof required to deny the entrant, or find enough incriminating evidence required to arrest the entrant.” wiki republican fun
but facebook fun can be a beotch. the above came after bruner reposted 1.) betty Olson’s shared concern after the recent Harney Lake militant fiasco in burns, OR/Bunkerville NV, that Utah republican reps. want to strip police powers from BLM & USDAFS, and 2.) after Dave Roetman joined bruner’s posts of close-up photos of a pretty woman with a nose ring, and a fancy bull also with a nose ring, wondering if it served the same domineering purpose.
what, enabling a sexually starved SD hayseed to drag a woman where he might not otherwise be able to bring her?
But you aren’t taking us to the comedy club, Matt. Your comments above made clear that you weren’t just yanking MSNBC’s chain, but that you really do think Muslims and Mexicans are ruining the country. You keep trying to turn this into another tired opportunity to whine about weenie liberals taking away your fun, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re uttering and defending some xenophobic views.
matt, I don’t know u. I notice yesterday npr carried a story from berlin about hate speech, pc, and legal liability for posting stupid stuff.