Some of you have speculated on the dilemma you may face in November. Don’t agonize. It isn’t going to be close. Hillary will lose more major states to a 74 year old socialist tonight, but she will destroy Trump.
Yes. America will pick Hillary (whom it distrusts) over Trump (whom it detests). I have a rule that I never vote for a Democrat, because I regard the Democrat party as an alliance of all that is wrong with America. That rule will prevent me from voting for either Hillary or Trump. I can’t help it if Republicans choose to nominate a Democrat.
I’m afraid you may be right, Ricky. From the column linked:
” … Barring some sort of dramatic turn of events, it seems exceedingly likely that a general electorate of around 130 million will look at a Clinton it distrusts and a Trump it detests and choose the lesser evil.
The Republican party is speeding toward a canyon, and its primary voters still refuse to hit the brakes.”
rw: I don’t think that Hillary has a chance. First of all, I don’t think that she will make it to the ballot, and even if she does, she’s got too much hanging over her (despite the LIVs who will vote for her regardless). When you add in Trump’s populist momentum plus a far more energized Republican electorate (than the Democrats), then it could be a pretty convincing victory for Trump.
I am in the same situation. I will not vote for Trump. He is a loose cannon and as more than one person has said bast$*!( crazy.
I don’t like Hillary, but at least she is the devil we know. I can’t bring myself to vote for her either.
I think I will join Ricky in sitting this one out.
National Review (Lowry) looks at some Trump parallels to the 1968 insurgent candidate, George Wallace (a much better comparison than those to “Hitler,” which I think are just overblown):
* was hated by his own party
* drew enormous crowds
* was funny and anti-intellectual (“pointy-headed professors”)
* talked tough
* hated the media
* was “light” on policy
* tapped into a deep anger
_________________________________
” … Trump bears a striking resemblance to Wallace, another entertaining, anti-establishment bomb-thrower who became — to the shock of respectable people — a kind of tribune of the American working class. For all his ugliness, Trump isn’t, like Wallace, a segregationist fueled by his opposition to civil-rights legislation and federal power. But he is a voice of rough-hewn populism that hasn’t had such potent expression since the Alabama governor ran for president, finding more support than anyone thought possible. (Stephan Lesher’s biography, George Wallace: American Populist, is the source for much of what follows.) … ”
_________________________________
That said, I do believe we should pay more attention to the lament of working class people in this country. They’ve been left in the dust by the Democrats in that party’s breakneck race to embrace (only) elitist, far-leftist ideas — but they also are often left out of the GOP in what’s perceived as that party’s more “corporate America” concerns.
Trump (like Wallace before him) just stokes the anger without offering any real policy solutions.
I heard someone last night on the radio best express my own concerns when he said that Trump seems to have no “compass” — or we don’t have a clue what it is, at any rate.
What does he really believe? I don’t know. As radio host Dennis Prager said some months ago, it would seem that Trump hasn’t genuinely thought through a political philosophy and doesn’t understand what conservatism even means.
I shudder at the thought of 4 more years (now under Clinton).
If our insane world is going to nominate and potentially elect somebody like Trump, I certainly hope he will have solid thoughtful people working with him and I hope he is able to listen to and hear them. Go Ben Carson.
And at this point, unless something really remarkable happens in the coming months, I do not envision myself voting for Trump. I can almost see me voting for Sanders over Trump or Clinton.
… I respect and even like Bernie Sanders. He’s a charismatic speaker and a passionate believer in his cause. He believes deeply in what he is saying, which is more than what can be said about nearly every other 2016 candidate, or about politicians in general. I say this while disagreeing vehemently with nearly everything he says about policy. The “revolution” rhetoric of Senator Sanders has struck a chord with many Americans, especially the young voters who are realizing that their own lives are unlikely to match the opportunities and wealth of their parents and grandparents. They are being left behind in a rapidly changing world. It is a helpless, hopeless feeling.
The problem is with the proposed solutions. A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. Of course Senator Sanders does not want to turn America into a totalitarian state like the one I grew up in. But it’s a valuable example of the inevitable failure of a state-run economy and distribution system. (Check in on Venezuela for a more recent example.)
Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect. …
_________________________
If I was to vote for Sanders, I would be saying, the America I know is gone. Let’s at least go out with a leader who believes what he is doing is right, even though we know it is wrong. I am not interested in handing the country over to the woman who saw no American deaths in Libya while she was in charge. Sorry Mr. Ambassador and three cohorts.
It is seldom that the fate of a nation can be traced to what happened on one particular day. But that may be what happens in the United States of America on Tuesday, March 15, 2016.
That is because the front-runners in both political parties are not merely inadequate but appalling — and the vote in this Tuesday’s primaries may be the last chance for the voters to unite behind someone else. …
… We survived Jimmy Carter and we may survive Barack Obama, but there is no guarantee that we can survive an unlimited amount of reckless decisions in a dangerous world.
The dangers are both internal and external. Two of our bitterest enemies — Iran and North Korea — are openly declaring their desire to destroy us. And both are developing intercontinental missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. …
We will be lucky to survive the damage that has been done already. A third consecutive term of such policies, with Hillary Clinton in the White House, can be suicidal. …
Internally, Hillary Clinton’s whole political career has been based on polarizing the American population by race, sex, class and any other way that will serve her political interests. This kind of cynical political exploitation can take the “United” out of the United States, and Balkanize us into an internal war of each against all. That is a war in which we can all lose.
As for the Republicans’ front-runner, what is there left to say about Donald Trump? Almost daily he demonstrates that he lacks the maturity, the depth and the character required to lead a nation facing a complex range of dangers.
It is not a question of his having flaws, which we all have. But what kind of warped character does someone have at his core who can mock a prisoner of war who was tortured for years by our enemies, mock someone else with a physical defect, reply to questions with gutter-level insults, and offer childish boasts about what he is going to do, instead of specifics about how?
These are not subtle nuances. They are blatant revelations about something fundamentally wrong. …
____________________________
Sanders is now the only candidate with an above 50% favourability rating. And I don’t think its because Americans have suddenly embraced socialism. Rather he’s an honest clear headed individual who has been consistent all his life. Currently he also is polling to beat all Republican potential nominees; something Clinton is not. If he were to win the nomination, I’m sure the Republicans would throw everything but the kitchen sink at him but I don’t think it will stick. Socialism or social democracy or social democratic is no longer a dirty word in American politics — the Wall fell a generation ago.
The two parties are in a quandary — the Republicans might be stuck with someone they did’t want and will lose with while the Democratic party are stuck with someone they wanted and may also lose.
The Wallace analogy is much better than Hitler but for foreigners an analogy to Mussolini is helpful or the modern Italian Berlusconi is also good. The latter was extremely wealthy, boorish, corrupt, loud mouthed, anti-intellecutal and a (false) populist.
Donna,
I don’t think the Democratic party deserted the working class by embracing far left elitist ideas rather they deserted the working class by embracing corporate America and Wall Street — so much so that they are now the party of the finance sector while the Republicans are the party of the resource sector. Neither party has anything to offer the working class — which explains both Trump and Sanders; the former allows them to express their anger and the latter tells them there is a way forward. Kasparov may know Communism but he can’t really understand Sanders if he doesn’t understand the model Sanders follows is Scandinavia not the USSR or Venezuela.
KimH — the video is pretty much spot on. Am I the only person over 40 who doesn’t think millennial are spoiled?
donna j: Exactly. Well-meaning socialists then create “temporary” police states to put all the machinery of the beautiful Paradise in motion. Socialism kills incentive, and people are then forced to work as slaves of the state. Eventually, the only incentive to produce and to keep quality up to standard is the gun to your head, or fear of starvation. Everyone is equal when everyone is poor. Ultimately, the economy falls into ruin and millions are slaughtered. Despots can rule man, but no amount of government can change people’s hearts.
Man is fundamentally corrupt. Power in the hands of the many isn’t perfect, but it is far better than in the hands of a few. Centralization of power centralizes corruption.
We were created to enjoy the works of our hands, the fruit of our labors, and to provide for our families. The free market provides natural checks and balances which are far more responsive than the massive overreach of central planning, which cannot be changed except by falling into ruin.
Wow — Sowell …..sometimes I wonder where he comes up with this.
Iran is not one of America’s bitterest enemies. They have no intention of destroying the US; Israel maybe but not the US. The Iranian gov’t sees itself as a regional power and views Israel and Saudi Arabia as impediments to that vision. Turkey (a nominal US ally) and Iran work together on areas of mutual concern — Iraq and Syria for instance. And in fact with Turkey acting as an intermediary, Iran and the US cooperate on Syria, or at least on anti-ISIS policy. The US probably receives more cooperation from Iran than Saudi in combating ISIS.
Clinton is campaigning as Obama’s third term not her husband’s third term. Strategically it makes sense in that she needs the 20-40 crowd who are pro-Obama whereas she knows she has the baby boomer vote who are slightly nostalgic for Bill. In addition, whether Sowell would like to admit or not, Obama has largely done a good job given the starting point he was given and the lack of cooperation he received from Congress. Personally I think he should have been more assertive in the beginning of his first term and he’s disappointed me in his foreign policy esp. drone use but overall he’s done a good job.
However, I don’t think Clinton will be a third Obama term. While Obama could be said to be centrist or neutral in Wall St. vs Main St,, Clinton is far more inclined to Wall St and is right of centre (yeah my political axis doesn’t match America’s). She will not be good domestically for the American middle class and working class (unless Warren/Sanders etc keep her in check).
Capitalism will naturally lead to an accumulation of wealth and thus a centralization of power which is of course corrupting. The free market then eats itself and we live in corporatist economy not a free market economy. This has been the gradual direction of the economy since the 80s and we have reached the point where centralization of money and power in the hands of the few have corrupted the free market. Its time for a little intervention to save capitalism from itself.
Social democratic countries consistently practise a little intervention to prevent the centralization of wealth and power and to maintain and direct the power of the free market in a productive manner. Hence, social democratic countries boast the best living standards, the best health care outcomes and generally speaking the most resilient economies.
Three influential leaders in the conservative movement have summoned other top conservatives for a closed-door meeting this Thursday in Washington D.C. to talk about how to stop Donald Trump and, should he become the Republican nominee, how to run a third-party “true conservative” challenger in the fall.
The organizers of the meeting include Bill Wichterman, who was President George W. Bush’s liaison to the conservative movement, Bob Fischer, a South Dakota businessman and longtime conservative convener, and Erick Erickson, the outspoken Trump opponent and conservative activist who founded RedState.com. …
_____________________________________________
“Carson said he liked Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich but didn’t think they could win the Republican nomination. He also said he didn’t think that Sen. Ted Cruz could win in the general election.
“I have to look at what is practical and what is going to save this country and the American dream for the next generation,” Carson said. “Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.”
“With one of the other candidates, you mean?” Malzberg asked.
“Yes,” Carson replied.
Double ouch.
Then Carson went on to question whether Trump should have offered to pay the legal fees for a man who punched a protester, and he openly talked about how Trump has offered him a role in his administration. Carson declined to say whether he has been promised a Cabinet job.”
A “third party” conservative candidate will probably just make Trump more popular and increase his populist edge.
I’ve said here or elsewhere that Trump’s popularity probably correlates geographically to the popularity of professional wrestling. It appears I’m not the only one holding this opinion. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trump-politics-and-professional-wrestling/473652/
I’m waiting for Trump to pull the surprise in the ring switch — where he turns around and assaults his teammate and joins the other side.
Kim — There are days I want to slap my daughter silly and remind her to be grateful but then I see what her and her friends do and the initiative they show. There’s a balance of good and bad as they mature. I try to ignore the times I think she acts spoiled and marvel at her independence and initiative which I did not have. Glass half full vs half empty thing, which is strange because I’m usually the half empty type person.
Yeah Donna, a 3rd party, that’s the ticket…. to a Hilary presidency. 😦
Interesting also that these “top conservatives” are ignoring the promise the party and Trump made about 3rd parties. Yet they’d expect him to keep his word if they could muster a candidate to beat him. I’d expect this type of behavior from Erickson, a Bush lackey, and Fischer. (who wanted to do the same to McCain years ago)
I don’t consider any of them to be “top” anything, so their opinions mean little. Bottom line is if Trump is the nominee, you either vote for him, or you don’t. For whatever personal reasons or issues we decide, we have that right. I don’t mind if people abstain, that’s their right. But then those folks don’t get to whine about the outcome and results, having done nothing to affect the outcome.
But 3rd party voting I tend to look down on for the most part. OK, so folks vote 3rd party, they and Republicans lose, and Hillary wins. It’s a vote for Hillary, and Erickson and the like know this. They know they have no hope, but seek only to torpedo Trump. Just be real men and vote for her and be done with it, I’d have a lot more respect for them if they did.
One day maybe we will have a legit 3rd party with a chance, and that would change my opinion, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
I see it as a Hillary/Trump battle. I’m still holding out hope for Cruz, but I doubt it at this point. If it comes to it, at least with Trump there’s a chance he surrounds himself with good folks and does OK. With Hillary there’s no chance. It’s not a hard choice for me.
We just need to learn to embrace the suck of it all. 🙂
I gotta say though, no one on this Earth has the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Republican party. This should have been a slam-dunk easy election. In states where primaries have happened, R voters are up, D’s down. After Obama’s mess, motivating R’s wasn’t/isn’t a problem. But nooooooo……
But who to blame? Trump has shot through the primaries, winning the most delegates … Perhaps what was once seen as a 2016 party advantage — that “deep bench” of talented, up-and-coming conservatives — turned out to be our Achilles Heel, so many candidates who split the vote for so long that Trump managed to stay on top.
But you can’t say he didn’t follow the process, even if his success was to everyone’s (or most everyone’s) horror and surprise.
Trump has announced that if elected he plans to form an alliance with the dictators of North Korea and Zimbabwe. They are going to call it: The Axis of Lunacy.
So I want our third party candidate to be a Texas Independence Party candidate. We will just turn the general election into a referendum on secession. No Hillary, no Bernie, no Trump. Free Texas!
Quick question from a non-American. If a candidate stops running, what happens with the states they’ve already won. Do their delegates vote for whoever they want then?
The candidate who dropped out keeps those delegates which can then be given to someone else at the convention (not sure if that can happen before the convention). So they remain a player in that sense.
The whole thing is so disheartening, frankly. I can’t fathom *not* voting for president but it looks like that’s what I’ll end up doing. Either Clinton or Trump would, I think, be horrible choices.
Donna, being pledged to vote for one candidate doesn’t commit you to vote for whoever he endorses, does it? Morally speaking, I don’t see how it could. (If I’ve committed to Carson, I wouldn’t then be committed to Trump, a man I could not vote for. That wouldn’t make sense.)
If my grandkids ask me some day if I voted for President Trump, I’m not going to tell them, “Yes, sorry, I did.” Sometimes the lesser of two evils is still evil, and in my mind that’s what this one is.
That’s from someone who has so far voted for all those “hold your nose and vote” Republican candidates the last couple decades (and who was still seven months too young to vote for Reagan the second time he ran). As much as I want to vote against Hillary or against Sanders, Trump is not qualified to be president, from any angle you want to look at him (morally, among other ones), and I will not play any part of hiring him.
Cheryl, it looks like the delegates would become “free agents” if/when released by Rubio at the convention. Rubio himself, of course, can endorse another candidate at this point …
This is kind of new territory for most of us, there hasn’t been the prospect of a truly “open” convention in quite a while.
Wandering Views 
Some of you have speculated on the dilemma you may face in November. Don’t agonize. It isn’t going to be close. Hillary will lose more major states to a 74 year old socialist tonight, but she will destroy Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432784/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-doormat-white-house
Yes. America will pick Hillary (whom it distrusts) over Trump (whom it detests). I have a rule that I never vote for a Democrat, because I regard the Democrat party as an alliance of all that is wrong with America. That rule will prevent me from voting for either Hillary or Trump. I can’t help it if Republicans choose to nominate a Democrat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m afraid you may be right, Ricky. From the column linked:
” … Barring some sort of dramatic turn of events, it seems exceedingly likely that a general electorate of around 130 million will look at a Clinton it distrusts and a Trump it detests and choose the lesser evil.
The Republican party is speeding toward a canyon, and its primary voters still refuse to hit the brakes.”
LikeLike
rw: I don’t think that Hillary has a chance. First of all, I don’t think that she will make it to the ballot, and even if she does, she’s got too much hanging over her (despite the LIVs who will vote for her regardless). When you add in Trump’s populist momentum plus a far more energized Republican electorate (than the Democrats), then it could be a pretty convincing victory for Trump.
LikeLike
I am in the same situation. I will not vote for Trump. He is a loose cannon and as more than one person has said bast$*!( crazy.
I don’t like Hillary, but at least she is the devil we know. I can’t bring myself to vote for her either.
I think I will join Ricky in sitting this one out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
National Review (Lowry) looks at some Trump parallels to the 1968 insurgent candidate, George Wallace (a much better comparison than those to “Hitler,” which I think are just overblown):
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432797/donald-trump-george-wallace-2016
Like Trump, Wallace:
* was hated by his own party
* drew enormous crowds
* was funny and anti-intellectual (“pointy-headed professors”)
* talked tough
* hated the media
* was “light” on policy
* tapped into a deep anger
_________________________________
” … Trump bears a striking resemblance to Wallace, another entertaining, anti-establishment bomb-thrower who became — to the shock of respectable people — a kind of tribune of the American working class. For all his ugliness, Trump isn’t, like Wallace, a segregationist fueled by his opposition to civil-rights legislation and federal power. But he is a voice of rough-hewn populism that hasn’t had such potent expression since the Alabama governor ran for president, finding more support than anyone thought possible. (Stephan Lesher’s biography, George Wallace: American Populist, is the source for much of what follows.) … ”
_________________________________
LikeLiked by 1 person
That said, I do believe we should pay more attention to the lament of working class people in this country. They’ve been left in the dust by the Democrats in that party’s breakneck race to embrace (only) elitist, far-leftist ideas — but they also are often left out of the GOP in what’s perceived as that party’s more “corporate America” concerns.
Trump (like Wallace before him) just stokes the anger without offering any real policy solutions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And for a less critical look at Trump:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432786/trump-compared-to-obama-clintons
I heard someone last night on the radio best express my own concerns when he said that Trump seems to have no “compass” — or we don’t have a clue what it is, at any rate.
What does he really believe? I don’t know. As radio host Dennis Prager said some months ago, it would seem that Trump hasn’t genuinely thought through a political philosophy and doesn’t understand what conservatism even means.
I shudder at the thought of 4 more years (now under Clinton).
But …
LikeLike
If our insane world is going to nominate and potentially elect somebody like Trump, I certainly hope he will have solid thoughtful people working with him and I hope he is able to listen to and hear them. Go Ben Carson.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And at this point, unless something really remarkable happens in the coming months, I do not envision myself voting for Trump. I can almost see me voting for Sanders over Trump or Clinton.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A Bernie caution for young voters so enamored with him:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/garry-kasparov-hey-bernie-don-t-lecture-me-about-socialism-i-lived-through-it.html
__________________________
… I respect and even like Bernie Sanders. He’s a charismatic speaker and a passionate believer in his cause. He believes deeply in what he is saying, which is more than what can be said about nearly every other 2016 candidate, or about politicians in general. I say this while disagreeing vehemently with nearly everything he says about policy. The “revolution” rhetoric of Senator Sanders has struck a chord with many Americans, especially the young voters who are realizing that their own lives are unlikely to match the opportunities and wealth of their parents and grandparents. They are being left behind in a rapidly changing world. It is a helpless, hopeless feeling.
The problem is with the proposed solutions. A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. Of course Senator Sanders does not want to turn America into a totalitarian state like the one I grew up in. But it’s a valuable example of the inevitable failure of a state-run economy and distribution system. (Check in on Venezuela for a more recent example.)
Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect. …
_________________________
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is what is being passed around amongst our young and spoiled.
LikeLike
If I was to vote for Sanders, I would be saying, the America I know is gone. Let’s at least go out with a leader who believes what he is doing is right, even though we know it is wrong. I am not interested in handing the country over to the woman who saw no American deaths in Libya while she was in charge. Sorry Mr. Ambassador and three cohorts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And (sorry for the multiple posts) a good column today by Sowell:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/03/15/draft-n2133589
__________________________________
It is seldom that the fate of a nation can be traced to what happened on one particular day. But that may be what happens in the United States of America on Tuesday, March 15, 2016.
That is because the front-runners in both political parties are not merely inadequate but appalling — and the vote in this Tuesday’s primaries may be the last chance for the voters to unite behind someone else. …
… We survived Jimmy Carter and we may survive Barack Obama, but there is no guarantee that we can survive an unlimited amount of reckless decisions in a dangerous world.
The dangers are both internal and external. Two of our bitterest enemies — Iran and North Korea — are openly declaring their desire to destroy us. And both are developing intercontinental missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. …
We will be lucky to survive the damage that has been done already. A third consecutive term of such policies, with Hillary Clinton in the White House, can be suicidal. …
Internally, Hillary Clinton’s whole political career has been based on polarizing the American population by race, sex, class and any other way that will serve her political interests. This kind of cynical political exploitation can take the “United” out of the United States, and Balkanize us into an internal war of each against all. That is a war in which we can all lose.
As for the Republicans’ front-runner, what is there left to say about Donald Trump? Almost daily he demonstrates that he lacks the maturity, the depth and the character required to lead a nation facing a complex range of dangers.
It is not a question of his having flaws, which we all have. But what kind of warped character does someone have at his core who can mock a prisoner of war who was tortured for years by our enemies, mock someone else with a physical defect, reply to questions with gutter-level insults, and offer childish boasts about what he is going to do, instead of specifics about how?
These are not subtle nuances. They are blatant revelations about something fundamentally wrong. …
____________________________
LikeLike
In that video it says the means of production should be owned “by the community as a whole.”
That sounds nice. But what it really means is the means of production will be owned and controlled by … the government.
Not so nice.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Socialism, Communism, all sound good. They just don’t seem to work with a bunch of humans involved.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sanders is now the only candidate with an above 50% favourability rating. And I don’t think its because Americans have suddenly embraced socialism. Rather he’s an honest clear headed individual who has been consistent all his life. Currently he also is polling to beat all Republican potential nominees; something Clinton is not. If he were to win the nomination, I’m sure the Republicans would throw everything but the kitchen sink at him but I don’t think it will stick. Socialism or social democracy or social democratic is no longer a dirty word in American politics — the Wall fell a generation ago.
The two parties are in a quandary — the Republicans might be stuck with someone they did’t want and will lose with while the Democratic party are stuck with someone they wanted and may also lose.
The Wallace analogy is much better than Hitler but for foreigners an analogy to Mussolini is helpful or the modern Italian Berlusconi is also good. The latter was extremely wealthy, boorish, corrupt, loud mouthed, anti-intellecutal and a (false) populist.
Donna,
I don’t think the Democratic party deserted the working class by embracing far left elitist ideas rather they deserted the working class by embracing corporate America and Wall Street — so much so that they are now the party of the finance sector while the Republicans are the party of the resource sector. Neither party has anything to offer the working class — which explains both Trump and Sanders; the former allows them to express their anger and the latter tells them there is a way forward. Kasparov may know Communism but he can’t really understand Sanders if he doesn’t understand the model Sanders follows is Scandinavia not the USSR or Venezuela.
KimH — the video is pretty much spot on. Am I the only person over 40 who doesn’t think millennial are spoiled?
LikeLiked by 2 people
donna j: Exactly. Well-meaning socialists then create “temporary” police states to put all the machinery of the beautiful Paradise in motion. Socialism kills incentive, and people are then forced to work as slaves of the state. Eventually, the only incentive to produce and to keep quality up to standard is the gun to your head, or fear of starvation. Everyone is equal when everyone is poor. Ultimately, the economy falls into ruin and millions are slaughtered. Despots can rule man, but no amount of government can change people’s hearts.
Man is fundamentally corrupt. Power in the hands of the many isn’t perfect, but it is far better than in the hands of a few. Centralization of power centralizes corruption.
We were created to enjoy the works of our hands, the fruit of our labors, and to provide for our families. The free market provides natural checks and balances which are far more responsive than the massive overreach of central planning, which cannot be changed except by falling into ruin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow — Sowell …..sometimes I wonder where he comes up with this.
Iran is not one of America’s bitterest enemies. They have no intention of destroying the US; Israel maybe but not the US. The Iranian gov’t sees itself as a regional power and views Israel and Saudi Arabia as impediments to that vision. Turkey (a nominal US ally) and Iran work together on areas of mutual concern — Iraq and Syria for instance. And in fact with Turkey acting as an intermediary, Iran and the US cooperate on Syria, or at least on anti-ISIS policy. The US probably receives more cooperation from Iran than Saudi in combating ISIS.
Clinton is campaigning as Obama’s third term not her husband’s third term. Strategically it makes sense in that she needs the 20-40 crowd who are pro-Obama whereas she knows she has the baby boomer vote who are slightly nostalgic for Bill. In addition, whether Sowell would like to admit or not, Obama has largely done a good job given the starting point he was given and the lack of cooperation he received from Congress. Personally I think he should have been more assertive in the beginning of his first term and he’s disappointed me in his foreign policy esp. drone use but overall he’s done a good job.
However, I don’t think Clinton will be a third Obama term. While Obama could be said to be centrist or neutral in Wall St. vs Main St,, Clinton is far more inclined to Wall St and is right of centre (yeah my political axis doesn’t match America’s). She will not be good domestically for the American middle class and working class (unless Warren/Sanders etc keep her in check).
LikeLike
Capitalism will naturally lead to an accumulation of wealth and thus a centralization of power which is of course corrupting. The free market then eats itself and we live in corporatist economy not a free market economy. This has been the gradual direction of the economy since the 80s and we have reached the point where centralization of money and power in the hands of the few have corrupted the free market. Its time for a little intervention to save capitalism from itself.
Social democratic countries consistently practise a little intervention to prevent the centralization of wealth and power and to maintain and direct the power of the free market in a productive manner. Hence, social democratic countries boast the best living standards, the best health care outcomes and generally speaking the most resilient economies.
LikeLike
I am only basing the spoiled on the Millinniel I have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting development
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/top-conservatives-gather-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786
____________________________________________
Three influential leaders in the conservative movement have summoned other top conservatives for a closed-door meeting this Thursday in Washington D.C. to talk about how to stop Donald Trump and, should he become the Republican nominee, how to run a third-party “true conservative” challenger in the fall.
The organizers of the meeting include Bill Wichterman, who was President George W. Bush’s liaison to the conservative movement, Bob Fischer, a South Dakota businessman and longtime conservative convener, and Erick Erickson, the outspoken Trump opponent and conservative activist who founded RedState.com. …
_____________________________________________
LikeLike
Apparently Romney thinks he should be drafted in place of Trump.
LikeLike
Sure enough, even though Trump wasn’t his first choice, Carson went with him b/c he was offered a position in a possible Trump administration…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/15/ben-carsons-painfully-bad-quotes-about-supporting-donald-trump/
“Carson said he liked Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich but didn’t think they could win the Republican nomination. He also said he didn’t think that Sen. Ted Cruz could win in the general election.
“I have to look at what is practical and what is going to save this country and the American dream for the next generation,” Carson said. “Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.”
“With one of the other candidates, you mean?” Malzberg asked.
“Yes,” Carson replied.
Double ouch.
Then Carson went on to question whether Trump should have offered to pay the legal fees for a man who punched a protester, and he openly talked about how Trump has offered him a role in his administration. Carson declined to say whether he has been promised a Cabinet job.”
LikeLike
A “third party” conservative candidate will probably just make Trump more popular and increase his populist edge.
I’ve said here or elsewhere that Trump’s popularity probably correlates geographically to the popularity of professional wrestling. It appears I’m not the only one holding this opinion.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trump-politics-and-professional-wrestling/473652/
I’m waiting for Trump to pull the surprise in the ring switch — where he turns around and assaults his teammate and joins the other side.
Kim — There are days I want to slap my daughter silly and remind her to be grateful but then I see what her and her friends do and the initiative they show. There’s a balance of good and bad as they mature. I try to ignore the times I think she acts spoiled and marvel at her independence and initiative which I did not have. Glass half full vs half empty thing, which is strange because I’m usually the half empty type person.
LikeLike
AJ here,
Yeah Donna, a 3rd party, that’s the ticket…. to a Hilary presidency. 😦
Interesting also that these “top conservatives” are ignoring the promise the party and Trump made about 3rd parties. Yet they’d expect him to keep his word if they could muster a candidate to beat him. I’d expect this type of behavior from Erickson, a Bush lackey, and Fischer. (who wanted to do the same to McCain years ago)
I don’t consider any of them to be “top” anything, so their opinions mean little. Bottom line is if Trump is the nominee, you either vote for him, or you don’t. For whatever personal reasons or issues we decide, we have that right. I don’t mind if people abstain, that’s their right. But then those folks don’t get to whine about the outcome and results, having done nothing to affect the outcome.
But 3rd party voting I tend to look down on for the most part. OK, so folks vote 3rd party, they and Republicans lose, and Hillary wins. It’s a vote for Hillary, and Erickson and the like know this. They know they have no hope, but seek only to torpedo Trump. Just be real men and vote for her and be done with it, I’d have a lot more respect for them if they did.
One day maybe we will have a legit 3rd party with a chance, and that would change my opinion, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
I see it as a Hillary/Trump battle. I’m still holding out hope for Cruz, but I doubt it at this point. If it comes to it, at least with Trump there’s a chance he surrounds himself with good folks and does OK. With Hillary there’s no chance. It’s not a hard choice for me.
Just MHO.
LikeLike
Romney? 🙄
I can see it now…. Romney 2016, because losing once isn’t enough…. 🙂
Who’s the VP? Marco “I’ll be lucky to win my own state” Rubio? 🙂
They’re just making Trump even more appealing if that’s the best they can come up with.
LikeLike
Agree on 3rd party, it’s little more than a Hail Mary pass. If not that, a bunch of folks will simply opt out
Any way you look at it (from here, things can change) the conservatives will be split — so, yeah, likely a Clinton win if that’s the case
LikeLike
I don’t see any way forward right now for unity in November
LikeLike
We just need to learn to embrace the suck of it all. 🙂
I gotta say though, no one on this Earth has the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Republican party. This should have been a slam-dunk easy election. In states where primaries have happened, R voters are up, D’s down. After Obama’s mess, motivating R’s wasn’t/isn’t a problem. But nooooooo……
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
I share your angst.
But who to blame? Trump has shot through the primaries, winning the most delegates … Perhaps what was once seen as a 2016 party advantage — that “deep bench” of talented, up-and-coming conservatives — turned out to be our Achilles Heel, so many candidates who split the vote for so long that Trump managed to stay on top.
But you can’t say he didn’t follow the process, even if his success was to everyone’s (or most everyone’s) horror and surprise.
LikeLike
This should have been the R’s election to lose — and so they might. But I’m not sure anyone’s to blame.
LikeLike
Trump has announced that if elected he plans to form an alliance with the dictators of North Korea and Zimbabwe. They are going to call it: The Axis of Lunacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More on Trump & evangelicals:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/evangelicals-accuse-fellow-believers-of-abandoning-023303073.html
LikeLike
Here is some news that is worse than Trump, Hillary or Bernie:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/15/new-study-gen-z-thinks-peers-completely-insane-reality-girls-boys/
Parents with young children should look for options to get their kids out of Sodom.
LikeLike
Don’t know which cnn panelist said this, but it was funny: This is “Goodbye Rubio Tuesday.”
(You had to have grown up with the music of the Rolling Stones to get it, of course.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well, Kasich wins Ohio … Looks like everything else goes to Clinton or Trump
Chas clearly didn’t vote often enough
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clinton AND Trump
LikeLike
Sigh
LikeLike
So I want our third party candidate to be a Texas Independence Party candidate. We will just turn the general election into a referendum on secession. No Hillary, no Bernie, no Trump. Free Texas!
LikeLike
Quick question from a non-American. If a candidate stops running, what happens with the states they’ve already won. Do their delegates vote for whoever they want then?
LikeLike
The candidate who dropped out keeps those delegates which can then be given to someone else at the convention (not sure if that can happen before the convention). So they remain a player in that sense.
The whole thing is so disheartening, frankly. I can’t fathom *not* voting for president but it looks like that’s what I’ll end up doing. Either Clinton or Trump would, I think, be horrible choices.
Hopefully neither will do irreparable harm.
God have mercy on the USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Donna, being pledged to vote for one candidate doesn’t commit you to vote for whoever he endorses, does it? Morally speaking, I don’t see how it could. (If I’ve committed to Carson, I wouldn’t then be committed to Trump, a man I could not vote for. That wouldn’t make sense.)
LikeLike
If my grandkids ask me some day if I voted for President Trump, I’m not going to tell them, “Yes, sorry, I did.” Sometimes the lesser of two evils is still evil, and in my mind that’s what this one is.
That’s from someone who has so far voted for all those “hold your nose and vote” Republican candidates the last couple decades (and who was still seven months too young to vote for Reagan the second time he ran). As much as I want to vote against Hillary or against Sanders, Trump is not qualified to be president, from any angle you want to look at him (morally, among other ones), and I will not play any part of hiring him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl, it looks like the delegates would become “free agents” if/when released by Rubio at the convention. Rubio himself, of course, can endorse another candidate at this point …
This is kind of new territory for most of us, there hasn’t been the prospect of a truly “open” convention in quite a while.
LikeLike
this is all quite depressing, really. 😦
LikeLike
Praying for God’s mercy on our nation.
LikeLiked by 3 people