Last Chance for America?

The "Super Tuesday" primaries may be a turning point for America -- and quite possibly a turn for the worse. After seven long years of domestic disasters and increasing international dangers, the next President of the United States will need extraordinary wisdom, maturity, depth of knowledge and personal character to rescue America.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is Donald Trump someone who would inspire such confidence among leaders of other countries? 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.

We need all the allies we can get, from countries around the world, including Muslim allies in the Middle East. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

Despite Donald Trump's string of primary vote victories, he has not yet gotten a majority of the Republican votes anywhere. 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.

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?

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?

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?

“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.

Bet your ass!

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,

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'll start my reply to this column by saying that Thomas Sowell has always been one of the most consistently clear conservative thinkers out there. I have tremendous respect for the man, and rarely disagree with him. That said...

What jumped out at me first regarding Dr. Sowell's essay is a contradiction early on. Sowell says

"...and he has ridden a wave of Republican voter anger against the Republican establishment, which has repeatedly betrayed them, especially on illegal immigration. But these political problems are a sideshow..."

But then Sowell goes on to say:

"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. "

So, immediately within a three-paragraph stretch, we see Sowell himself highlight a pretty darn good reason for supporting Trump: both parties have betrayed the country on illegal immigration, the Republicans having betrayed their own voters as well, and the open borders are a huge security threat. Trump is the only one who has made controlling the borders an unabashed priority, and has called out controlling the Muslim influx specifically. This is an incredibly bold position to take in this era of political correctness, but yet it is also probably the single most important issue on the table in terms of true national security. Because of political correctness, any man running for office who takes this position will automatically be labeled something akin to a "a glib egomaniac", or, perhaps more correctly, only "a glib egomaniac" would have the stones to take such a position and weather the subsequent howlings from the leftwing establishment. In other words, if you want someone to clean out the sewer, you'll have to find someone who doesn't mind getting his hands dirty. Yet Sowell seems to take this personality trait of Trump's as a negative. Well, in a sane, well-managed country perhaps it would be, but in a faltering, quickly degenerating country currently struggling to breathe in the choke-hold of leftwing thought-control, this type of man is probably the ONLY type who can do what must be done.

My second major disagreement with Sowell's reasoning is his highlighting of the UK's debate on whether to ban Trump from visiting the country. Sowell sees this as a result of " Trump's irresponsible rhetoric". This is a mind-boggling position for Sowell to take, because the reason there was outcry in the UK over Trump was SPECIFICALLY regarding his suggestion that muslim immigration should be halted temporarily, then better scrutinized and controlled, which of course is in keeping with his whole border theme. In other words, the debate over Trump in the UK was not concerning rhetoric toward the UK by Trump, but merely about policy suggestions Trump had for US immigration. For a conservative like Sowell to suggest that the UK's cry-fest over a US politician's domestic immigration policy is a legitimate reaction is mind-boggling. The UK has no business complaining about US domestic policy, as we would have no business complaining how they handle their internal affairs. And, again, the outcry was directly the result of political correctness, the same thought-control force used by the left to flood Europe currently with millions of rape-happy and beheading-happy muslims, the same force that has left Sweden the rape capitol of the developed world. Why on Earth would Sowell cite out-of-control political correctness as a valid criticism of Trump?

One can only assume that the logic Sowell is employing is that an "acceptable" Republican candidate would avoid implementing policies, both foreign and domestic, that would offend the sensibilities of any and every screaming leftwing nutbag within our allies' borders. In other words, an "acceptable" candidate would not only allow foreign countries to influence domestic US policy, but would allow their LEFTWING FRINGE to influence US domestic policy. That is an incredible line of reasoning for a conservative to take, and I can't help but think that Sowell has allowed his dislike for Trump to get him to accept, as rational arguments, concepts that in clearer-headed days he would soundly reject outright.

My final point that I'll mention here is that, Sowell, while listing what he sees as Trump's flaws, never lists what alternative we have. Essentially, he says Trump is bad but never says who is good, nor how they would be better than Trump. If he worries that Trump can't beat Hillary, then who could? Cruz? Rubio? Why would they have a better chance than Trump? If Trump won't handle national security issues well, then who would? And why would you believe that person would do it better than Trump? It almost seems as if Sowell has made it a point to tear down Trump without explaining why any of the other options would be any better. The sad reality is that we have to choose among the candidates offered. Any argument regarding whom to vote for cannot be simply: "don't vote for this guy - he's bad" without saying who is good, because the bad guy might just be the least bad of the bunch.

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.