This 2016 cover lost them two long time subscribers.
In other words, Trump should just stay quiet, despite seven years of witch hunts in search of a crime, because Democrats will act violently.
The author says that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg shouldn’t charge Trump with made-up crimes, but somehow Trump should be polite about it.
Speaking of 'bonkers'...
Journalists, anti-Trumpers, and other Democrats never cared how much Trump’s policies helped the poor and middle class move up the economic ladder; or that poverty rates hit the lowest levels on record; or that real wages were rising, or that we had energy independence, low inflation and a relatively peaceful world. No matter how good Trump's policies were, they sought to destroy him every day.
And now, National Review's Rich Lowry says that Republicans shouldn’t support Trump because Democrats and anti-Trumpers won’t like it if he wins.
It’s as if Lowry doesn’t remember that the media and other Democrats also trashed the great Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes, John McCain, Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney before Trump, all for the crime of having an “R” behind their name.
Trump would finish the wall, and throw out all of Biden executive orders and reinstate all his orders. And hopefully Trump would pardon all of the J6 prisoners and maybe pay them reparations and hopefully investigate the murders committed by the capital police that day.
Doesn’t seems bonkers are all.
What was interesting is that I came across an interview of Milton Friedman by William F Buckley and Dr. Friedman was ripping him apart for his want of an increase in government spending and yet another government program.
It was truly enlightening so see that National Review under the great William F Buckley had started to turn south so long ago.
BTTT
National review has gone the way of Drudge, nothing resembling the original.
“Bonkers”? I’m hoping more for ‘scorched Earth’ this time around. After what he learned from his first go at POTUS, I’d love to see Trump nuke these deep-state bastards.
Is National Review still in print? I thought it would have gone the way of The Weekly Standard by now.
Never an ‘nt-er’ myself, I can only support Trump in a 2nd term under 2 conditions:
1. An effective, vetted Cabinet and team of close advisers,
2. Drastic - and I do mean DRASTIC (and equally effective, i.e., not just for show) - action in his first 30 days...assuming he’s even permitted to show sufficient electoral votes to succeed.
If he’s not prepared, we’re better off without him and a 2nd term a ‘1st term redux’ with a whole new slate of distractions, possibly even nuclear war (if it doesn’t occur before then).
I strongly suggest that all FReepers insert themselves into their respective state’s election process, including - but not limited to - monitoring of ballot drop boxes.
2024 is ‘make or break. Regardless of whether it’s Trump or not, if we lose, we lose big.
And I mean BIG.
I don't think that's a bad thing. It might be a good time to settle this current political civil war before the other side tries to completely decide to disarm our side.
It maybe a pathetic reason, but it is realistic. Especially after the horrible reaction to the Trump charges by DeSantis which indicates how easily he can be influenced by the Uni-party members. DeSantis just lost a lot of possible support because it isn’t just Trump that needs the support, it is the rule of law. That is the big problem with the never Trumpers at National Review, they are alll about personality and only support the rule of law when it suits them.
The author is an idiot
It would not be a condemnation of our system but a shining example of why it is so good
White Shoe Republicans disgust me.
Judge Smalls from CaddyShack must be the secret editor and chief of NRO.
This 2016 cover lost them two long time subscribers.
National Review CAN GO POUND!
They’re no help to a conservative cause!
From Britannica:
"terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
F the Girly Boys over at NR.
I remember being skeptical when Lowry took over the editorship of NR after WFB. My skepticism has only deepened.
It will only be “bonkers” because his detractors scream and cry like little toddlers.
It’s the National Review Jake
NR needs to find a good anti-foaming-at-the-mouth medication.
Hard to wrap my mind around that logic.