Posted on 02/29/2016 9:18:43 PM PST by Kaslin
Just like sowell. Logical fail. Yeah, try to save this country with a la-de-da last passionless effort.
“Lazy”, not “last”
//o I plan to use my vote to vent my emotions or to try to help save this country?//
Save this country which is why I am voting for Trump. Tom mistakes the reason Trump has support, it is not our emotions but our intellect. I have several valid reasons, not based on emotion that I support Trump.
However I will not vote for Cruz. I don’t trust him
Or the wrong candidate. I remember he supported Romney and Romney was the wrong on.
Get outta my head.
:P
I can see Sowell singing that song at karaoke. :)
Ahhhh, nooooo!
My inner eyes!
Don’t forget your ears. They’ll be negatively affected, too. :)
God love Dr. Sowell, but he needs to add to his list the ability to ignore opposition and the juice to change minds. Trump is the only candidate who has it.
>And what is Donald Trump’s ideology?
American Exceptionalism; Americans First.
“Hey National Review: the Revolution is on! Didn’t you get the memo?”
And of all the posts I have read tonight, it is this one that coalesces my concerns in the best fashion.
What Revolution do you seek - one after the French one, or the American one?
To the best of my understanding, the terms “left” and right” as applied to political leanings, are constructs of the French revolution. Having conservatives called “right wing” as they are has really been useful construct for progressives by creating a conflation of issues and terms that we should oppose as both wings are elements of the same revolutionary party or ideology.
It is useful for those who want to say Hitler=Right Wing=Conservative, but until perhaps recently, an entirely untrue analogy, propping up a conservative boogie straw man.
I say until recently because unchecked populism probably qualifies for the contemporary use of term “right wing” quite well, but is hardly “conservatism.”
We have been misled into thinking of the political spectrum ranging from left to right with the extremes meeting in the middle of the backside of the circle. Left off the line entirely is an actual position which can be labeled liberty, and we are thus distracted into fighting tooth and nail over positions that will not accomplish liberty in the end.
Is a national socialist a right winger and an international socialist a left winger? They are both socialists, and ultimately enemical to freedom. (Note bene: I am not specifically declaring any candidate to be one or the other, you can contemplate the apparent choice before us for yourself).
Trump may be end up being the leader for a battle or so that we want and need won, but I am not sure that even winning those battles - if we do - will win the theater. This is where I differ with those who champion action over ideology. Proper ideology without action is worthless, but action without ideology ultimately leads nowhere useful.
I fear that if the Revolution is now, it will be of the French sort, with its attendant chaos and death not far off. Do you think only conservatives have guns, as many do? Of course not. But to be honest, all those left wingers who don’t have (their own) guns probably properly anticipate us killing each other off and leaving them the spoils. We are busy taking shots at one another here already: “the wall first!” “immigrants!” “the second amendment!...the first!... the tenth!...” Every one of these is important, vital even, but still symptomatic of something else altogether.
I think we are past the point of no return, barring another Great Awakening, and perhaps even with one, on the road to a great cataclysm. The question I see before us in this election is how it will go down, and will we be considered just in our attempts to right it.
John Quincy Adams differentiated between the American and French Revolutions not as right and left, but “Right and Wrong”
This is not a call to “trust us just one more time.” I have not trusted them since shortly after the Contract with America. It is a call to think beyond sentiment and uncalculating reaction. You might even say it is a call for a revolution, as I am confident that even if she who will not be named became president, or a runaway convention of the states, or the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment dead that We the People would at last be forced to say NO! [aside: I took an oath once...]
But I want the right Revolution.
Trump has the ability to change minds in spades. So many of us here and throughout the country laughed at the guy before he announced. Now we’re laughing with him as he leads us into battle.
“the Chinese model, a nationalism that that looks inward, not externally”
And that is why the Spratleys are such a paradise of love and peace and brotherhood.
;)
American revolution and French revolution don’t even come close to describing it. Those revolutions were limited to individual nations.
It’s a whole ‘nother ballgame now.
And you touched on it with your national vs international socialist distinctions.
Although Trump is rightly described as an American Exceptionalist, he is actually leading up the fight in the new paradigm of nationalist versus globalist.
Yeah, you have it right the first time.
Intellectually lazy.
BTW, when was the last time you or anyone you know, made a knee jerk emotional decision that turned out right?
When was the last time you heard a speech, or read a book, or had a advisor say that revenge was the right thing to do and that it solves problems?
The answer is never.
Emotionally made decisions are always wrong, not just sometimes.
Revenge always damages the person who uses it and never solves the issue. never...
All Sowell is advising voters to do, is to use the logic side of their brains, and not the emotional side when they vote.
I would ask the same.
Bet your ass!
Instead, if the polls are an indication, what we may get is someone with the opposite of all these things, a glib egomaniac with a checkered record in business and no track record at all in government -- Donald Trump.
No, that would be Rubio, or Hillary.
If so, the downward trajectory of America over the past seven years may well continue on into the future, to the point of no return.
Which is why Trump commands the support he has, people are rising up to put a stop to this trend,
Democrat Susan Estrich says that it is "fun" watching Donald Trump. She may be able to enjoy the spectacle because Trump is Hillary Clinton's best chance of winning the general election in November. Even if the FBI's investigation leads them to recommend an indictment, the Obama administration is not likely to indict Hillary.
So we are to sit back and enjoy it while a criminal treasonous bitch takes the cake? Who else is speaking out against her? She is off limits to both the rube and cruz. D Trump states publically that she should be in jail, and vows to prosecute. Anyone else out there saying anything close?
No doubt "The Donald" is entertaining, and he has ridden a wave of Republican voter anger against the Republican establishment, which has repeatedly betrayed them, especially on illegal immigration.
First correct and succinct sentence yet.
But these political problems are a sideshow, in a world where Iran is guaranteed to get nuclear weapons and North Korea, which already has them, is developing long-range missiles that can reach American cities. Iran is also developing long-range missiles.
Interesting he would bring this up, who is responsible for this, trump?
Who is the one saying this is the worst deal he has seen and vows to cancel it?
Then there are the international terrorist organizations from the Middle East -- many sponsored by Iran -- whose agents have had easy access to the United States across our open border with Mexico.
Again, who is opening the dialog of calling them terrorists and wishing to bomb the shit out of them?
We will need the cooperation of nations around the world to keep us informed of these terrorist organizations' activities, and to help disrupt the international money flows to terrorists.
Or we can do it without them, their choice, poop or get off the pot.
Those nations know that helping the United States makes them targets of terrorism. So they have to weigh how much they can rely on America, before they risk their own national survival by cooperating with us against the terrorists. This is interesting here. What he indicates is other nations no longer can rely on us. Who is the cause of this?
Is Donald Trump someone who would inspire such confidence among leaders of other countries?Hell yeah!
Already Trump's irresponsible rhetoric has caused a backlash in Mexico and there has also been an attempt in Britain to ban him from setting foot on British soil.
A eff off by a ex head of state to building a wall is not a "backlash"., it is talking out of the hummingbird rear end.
We need all the allies we can get, from countries around the world, including Muslim allies in the Middle East.
And towards that end, we finally have someone whose word will be trusted around the world, friend and for alike. No bullshit, he will call a spade a spade, and an isis terrorist the scum terrorists they are, did I mention bomb the shit out of them also?<> The last thing we can afford, at this crucial juncture in history is a president who alienates allies we have to have in a war against international terrorists.
Got to see it to believe it, his opinion, although he is entitled to it, holds no water here, and is nothing but weak conjecture, uttered by a desperate man.
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump's theatrical talents, including his bluster and bombast, may be enough to conceal his shallow understanding of very deep problems.
I would and previously did give Sowell the benefit, but creating strawmen used to be beneath him
has he interviewed trump to ascertain his actual thoughts on the matter similar to Session's aide prior to Sessions getting on board?
But that will not cut it in the White House, where you cannot clown or con your way out of problems, and where the stakes are matters of life and death.
Which the take down of the straw man.
Trump's acting like a bull in a china shop may appeal to some voters but, in the world as it is, he may well cost us our last chance to recover from the great dangers into which the Obama administration has gotten this nation.
And therefore, by implication, vote for Rubio, a sure winner, or cruz, who appears to be in a tie for his home state, and a double or triple amount loser in all the rest, a sure winner against Hillary (stifling a bwahahahaha here)
We already have an ego-driven, know-it-all president who will not listen to military or intelligence agency experts. Do we need to tempt fate by having two in a row?
Projecting is no way to go through life.
Despite Donald Trump's string of primary vote victories, he has not yet gotten a majority of the Republican votes anywhere.
Talk to me tomorrow night.
But although most Republican votes are being cast against him, the scattering of that vote among so many other candidates leaves Trump with a good chance to get the nomination.
Well, playing that game, it appears that there are in fact more people not supporting cruz than there are people not supporting trump, but the clever one knows this, right?
Everyone understands that the best chance for stopping Trump is for that fractured majority vote to consolidate behind one candidate opposed to him. But who will step aside for the good of the country?
Well there is cruz, and there is Rubio, which one is going to step aside, and if one did, both their total added up do not reach trumps level of support. Perhaps trump should bow out, and share his support with others? Nah, not today.
When we think of American military heroes who have fallen on enemy hand grenades to save those around them, at the cost of their own lives, is it really too much to ask candidates -- especially those who present themselves as patriots -- to give up their one political chance in a zillion this year for the sake of the country?
So, who among them is pledging, indeed, putting up, his own money, his liberty, his own sacred honor here? Who is using other people's property, hard work, and honor?
Voters have a responsibility too. They might well ask themselves: Do I plan to use my vote to vent my emotions or to try to help save this country?
It is the latter that is in fact driving the trump wave, we are putting our emotions aside, and even some of our beliefs, in an effort to save this country.
That is what people like Mr. Sowell cannot grasp, driven by their hatred.
All in all, I have seen, and expect much better from Mr, Sowell.
This particular piece reads like it was put together by an underling, perhaps some lib commie asshole, and for whatever leverage, had Mr. Sowell's gracious name applied to the top.
You need both sides of your brain, or else you’re just half-brained.
No one follows Spocks. People follow fully human Kirks, who often get it right, and are fun to work with, too.
Again, no one follows half-brained Spocks.
No one in their right mind and fully human body wants to be a Spock.
The point is to not let the right brain dominate.
Apparently you and quite a number of others do exactly that.
It’s not good...not good at all. It guarantees a easy to manipulate electorate and that guarantees a failed republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.