Socialists Sweep New Hampshire

Trumpby C. Edmund Wright   2/10/16
Shortly after Barack Obama swept into the White House while giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a coattail Marxist Congress, Newsweek Magazine ran the cover “We’re all Socialists now,” based on Jon Meacham’s lead article with the same headline.  Without a doubt, the election of that president and that Congress moved reality closer to Meacham’s point.  It was astonishing that liberal apologist Meacham admitted as much.

Yet it took until last night before it was literally true, as New Hampshire gave a full-throated socialist a rout over semi-socialist Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side and the once and now apparently again socialist Donald Trump won the GOP primary after going left of Bernie Sanders in his final rallies in the state.  To translate, Obama’s hope and change and fundamental transformation of the nation are right on track – barreling warp-speed to the left in both presidential primary contests.

In case you missed the final score, it was Bernie by about 18 over Hillary and Trump by about 18 over John Kasich.  Yes, John Kasich.

No wonder South Carolina, at least on the Republican side, quite often gives New Hampshire a middle finger a week later with a totally different result among a much bigger population.

We can all agree that Senator Sanders is of course a socialist.  He’s said it, proudly, loudly, and often.  A good percentage of our precious safe-spaced Millennials think socialism is great, and they think Bernie is great.  And apparently many of them are trying to decide between Bernie and…Hillary.  No, wait, Bernie and Trump!

And why not?  Trump has flirted with socialist talking points and ideas for decades, including quite often recently.

Now, I’m sure some of you are giving me the middle finger by calling out Trump as a once and now again socialist – but I defer to Trump’s own words in the final rallies of his New Hampshire campaign.  I’m not making this up.  Words mean things – especially in the specific context of politics – and the fact that Trump parrots Bernie Sanders quite often doesn’t make me a RINO or establishment shill or even “Yeb Bush.”[pullquote](Memo to Rush, Laura, Sean, Steyn, Coulter, and others – feel free to notice months of red flags that have been in your colossal blind spots.  They are not hard to spot.)[/pullquote]

It makes Trump a damned dangerous option for conservatives, even as I will vote for him over any Democrat – and many other Republicans as well.

According to Breitbart News, Byron York reported that “in a nearly one-hour speech, Trump railed against pharmaceutical companies.  He railed against oil companies.  And insurance companies.  And defense contractors.  And he set himself against a political system that he said allows big-money corporate ‘bloodsuckers’ to control the government with campaign contributions.”

In case this confuses you: According to Trump, the problem is business, not government.  No, government is as pure as the wind-driven snow.  The problem with health care is big pharma and not the precious, amazing government bureaucrats.

And by the way, what kind of mathematical mind thinks big oil is gouging anyone right now?  In 2011, Trump was obsessed with OPEC.  Of course, it was American “big oil” and not Trump’s negotiating Jedi mind tricks that made the cartel irrelevant.

Additionally, it seems the Donald thinks that big pharma and big hospital and big insurance went to Obama and begged him to totally ruin our health care system.  Either that or he’s just flat pandering and lying because he thinks the odd ball liberals in New Hampshire will lap it up.  Obviously they did.

Oh, and for the record, underlying Trump’s premise is that only rich people should run for office.  Now there’s a conservative principle if there ever was one.

Keep in mind that the man behind these words stumbled and bumbled and fumbled the question “what is a conservative” in the last debate worse than Cam Newton handled Von Miller in the Super Bowl.  He was totally clueless, murmuring something out of the dictionary not applicable to the context of the question.

This is not isolated, nor just in the past, either.  For decades – as we all know – Trump has been an advocate for universal government health care.  And while now he promises to replace Obamacare “with something terrific,” other than mentioning something about state lines, his rhetoric reeks of a big-government program and has nothing to do with market economics.  I don’t care what some ghostwriter put down on the website position paper…I’m talking about words from The Don himself.

He’s said very recently that “we’re gonna take care of everybody” and that Ted Cruz was “heartless” for apparently wanting to immediately replace Obamacare without some government-based Cruzcare.  Funny thing: Rick Perry effectively ended his campaign in 2012 with his infamous “heartless” comment in a debate over deportation.  Trump gets a pass.  Hell, he even gets credit for saying that.

Consider: A few months ago, Trump promised that “I’ll be terrific for women’s health care.”  The Don himself will be terrific for women?  Cue the creepy Daniel Ortega billboards, etc.  What the hell does it mean that “we” and “I” will take care of everybody?  It means our money and some iteration known as Trumpcare.

These words – these phrases – mean certain things in context of an election.  Trump is sounding like Bernie now and as Obama sounded in 2008-9-10.  We have to elect Trump to know what is in him, I guess.  But actually, we don’t.  When you sound like a Marxist on health care and attack someone like Cruz the way a Marxist would attack someone like Cruz, then it follows logically to apply “the duck test.”

(Memo to Rush, Laura, Sean, Steyn, Coulter, and others – feel free to notice months of red flags that have been in your colossal blind spots.  They are not hard to spot.)

“Whether it’s the insurance companies or the drug companies or the oil companies, it’s all the same thing,” Trump said. “We’re never going to get our country back if we keep doing this.”

Doing what?  Allowing big companies to find energy, cure disease, and protect risks?  Just damn them!

Well, according to York, “Trump has promised to allow the government to negotiate drug prices — a common position among Democrats but rarely heard at nominally Republican events. He said he would notWTF raise military spending, arguing that the nation’s defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget. He promised tough sanctions on American companies that move jobs overseas.”

Think about that.  He’s full Bernie on the military, and instead of rolling back our liberal government to entice companies to stay onshore or move onshore, Trump wants to sic the IRS on companies who don’t hire the way he wants.  These are Trump’s jobs, after all, not the companies’ jobs.  In other words, Trump stopped just short of “you didn’t build that.”

York added that “Trump was, in other words, in full populist mode as he wrapped up his New Hampshire campaign.”  York understates.  He was in full Bernie Socialist mode.  Meanwhile, daughter Ivanka Trump yesterday insisted that “from day one, my father has set the agenda for both parties.”

Indeed he has.  It sounds a lot like Bernie’s socialist agenda.  And he and Bernie both won.  Beam me up, Scotty…

CEdmundWrightC. Edmund Wright is contributor to StubbornThings, American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. • (1310 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Socialists Sweep New Hampshire

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a good article to go along with this frank assessment: Every Problem with Women in Combat the GOP Contenders Ignored

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A very good article, though I would note that one can go along with the Mabus order after the fact not because one is a social justice warrior but because one lacks the moral courage to stand up to them. Cruz apparently criticized the women in combat order later.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Do you remember Alistair Cooke, famous for Masterpiece Theater and his Letter from America on BBC?

      In the 1990’s, when the navy first announced that women would be part of a ship’s contingent, he was pilloried for saying how crazy it was. I remember him pointing out that the navy could not change human nature and that putting young women in a closed environment full of young men, would result in no good.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        And that’s merely one of the problems. Women can fill many combat roles, but very few can handle infantry combat (and I doubt many of those capable of it would be serving there anyway, since there’s plenty of money for female athletes). But “fairness” matters more today than the actual interests of the military, and this has been the case for years. The Demagogues will always make that choice, and too few Republicans will stand up to it. (Note that Bush 43 never did anything to correct the willful misinterpretation of Title IX that has devastated male sports teams in colleges.)

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      There is no real comparison between the average woman and the average man when it comes to body mass, upper body strength and endurance. I accept these as facts.

      However, the very nature of war is change. Most average males even with martial arts training could not win in hand to hand combat with the average 11th century knight. War changed, mostly with the perfection of the crossbow; meaning that a poorly trained serf could take out an armored knight.

      The nature of combat is still changing, a female pilot in an F-22 is just as deadly as her counterpart male. However, a male Marine with his weapon is and always be more deadly than a female.

      It may be that large combat operations will be less likely than in the 20th century. In that case there will be more women forward deployed and in danger. It is necessary that the services improve the training of women to perform when required. This means more weapons training, deployments with forward units and in cases where women have the physical ability to equal men then equal opportunity is necessary.

      In cases where women are deployed with combat units, they will go into combat with the men. No one is going to stop a war and let the women off, and frankly, if I am in trouble and waiting for a Marine to save me, I don’t care if that Marine is male or female, but a Marine.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The argument that sex becomes less important as technology takes the place of muscle is a reasonable one, Steve. However, I would argue there are even more pressing issues.

        Any good society (outside of one facing imminent peril, such as Israel) should never debase it’s women by asking them to fight its wars. It’s not old-fashioned to say that war is a man’s things and, if wars must be fought, should remain a man’s thing.

        Also, even if we were to dismiss this objection, what women in the military represents is affirmative action. It’s turning the military into a social program whereby “equality,” not fighting ability, is the point. However, I’m with you all the way if someone can show me that a woman can push a button or move a joystick just as effectively as a man.

        But that’s not what this is about. The dishonest argument we face is that we’re being told that combat readiness is not at all being effected adversely. But it is. And the reason they are lying about it is because the Left’s social goals trump the military goals. That’s how deep the rot is.

        So, if I’m the next president, I remove women to all but very subsidiary roles and put the focus back on the military for its function to be to “kill people and break things.” They are not a roving social program for rehabilitating societies. Neither is the purpose of the U.S. military to try to play out some socialist utopian gender-neutral scheme. The job of the military is to kill people and break things when given a mission that is said to be in our national interest.

        And if you were in a foxhole, Steve, it seems that your chances of being rescued would be greatly increased if all Marines were men. Women just can’t do the same job.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          One thing to consider is that most women who joined the military in the past probably knew they would have non-combatant jobs. As this changes (and they will have little choice themselves in the long run after joining), how many will choose not to join who would have done so until now? We aren’t going to bring back the draft (nor should we, since it constitutes involuntary servitude).

          Allowing women into a few specialist combat positions (such as pilots) or in support positions on Navy ships is one thing (and there are problems even there), but putting them in regular combat can get them killed along with their unit mates. But the dead will not come from elite families, so the latter don’t care about them.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          And the reason they are lying about it is because the Left’s social goals trump the military goals. That’s how deep the rot is.

          This is another Leftist assault on real difference, i.e. gender.

          They say that gender is nothing more than a social construct, but they know this is not the case. So they have to do everything they can to undermine reality. This is a case where they really do hate “diversity”.

        • Steve Lancaster says:

          I guess that my meaning is not entirely clear. I don’t think women should be in combat units, where size, strength and endurance are a factor, or could be a concern. However, given that many women because of their MOS or skills today and in the future will be deployed with combat units. Then it behoves the military, and government in general to accept that these women require more intense combat arms training and learn along with the men how to deal with extreme circumstances. I would never expect women to be a part of Marine Recon, or any other special forces.

          I would, and do expect them to be able to pick up an AR or AK and be able to bring fire on an enemy with the same degree of skill that I expect of any other Marine.

          I also do not expect that many women, given the option, would choose an MOS that would take them into combat. For those that do and can cut the standards with the men. I say go for it. Let our enemies say that even American women are trained, skilled, deadly and awesome in combat.

          As for the foxhole, your correct the odds are better but, excuse my regional prejudice, what I expect to hear is,”y’all need a hand?”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The necessity of combat training for those who may be forced into it was the point of my discussion of Dorie Miller. As a mess hand, he was also an AA gunner, and trained at it — training that came in handy that deadly morning. (In fact, the Japanese flyers were favorably impressed by the speed with which the Americans, despite being surprised, started shooting back.)

            Of course, it’s my understanding that ALL Marines are considered riflemen regardless of their military specialty. (Heinlein based his Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers on the Marines, which is why the Fleet handled their officer training.)

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Most average males even with martial arts training could not win in hand to hand combat with the average 11th century knight. War changed, mostly with the perfection of the crossbow; meaning that a poorly trained serf could take out an armored knight.

        While this may be true, it must be said that an “average” knight was anything but average. Knights were an elite group which started their training for war, at a young age. They came from the higher class and in fact, the specialized job of the medievel aristocracy was to fight. I suspect that if one trained today’s males in a similar fashion they would also be very good fighters. But one would be put behind bars for child abuse.

    • GHG says:

      In general – for most situations – women should not be put in a position where her physical limitations result in a weaker fighting force. No question. The dilemma is the ambiguity of the phrase “most situations”. Some roles are easy to categorize for the appropriateness for women, i.e. recon patrols: no, non-combat roles: yes. But there are grey areas that I struggle with because my daughter was in one of those grey areas.

      My daughter spent almost 12 years in the military with her last deployment in Afghanistan. She was a sergeant in the Army Quartermaster Corps and her job was to lead a 5-person crew of a MRAP (Mine Resistant Armor Protected) gunship. There was a driver, three other soldiers manning the three 50 cal. machine guns and my daughter who sat in the passenger seat and handled communications and logistics. The other 4 members were male. Their mission was to escort convoys, including through hostile areas. They came under fire a number of times and often it was after they got hit by an IED. She got injured when their truck got hit by a double IED and she still suffers from the head trauma she sustained (Epileptic seizures). More than anything else I’m saddened that she had to take over manning a machine gun when one of her soldiers was shot and unable to continue. She had to shoot other human beings in order to save herself and her soldiers from being overrun. Actually I’m more than sad – I’m angry that she was put in that position and has to live with that the rest of her life. If it were my son, I would be sad but not angry, if that makes sense.

      I’m proud of her service and so happy that her training served her well enough for her to survive. But I wish my “little girl” hadn’t had to go through those ordeals. I suppose that’s chauvinistic. Yeah. And proud of it.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s important to remember that even non-combatants can find themselves in combat. Dorie Miller, who became famous for his AA shooting on the California at Pearl Harbor, was a mess attendant — but also an AA gunner when needed. He was that morning.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Mr. Lesser, the context for my views on the issue of women in the military is that we dare not adopt the proposition that 2 plus 2 equals 5. I would say there is no natural instinct or inherent ability for women to serve as soldiers, so what we see is the attempt of women to become men. And when we see this happening in society, we not only lose the good feminine aspects but we tend to make men more girly-like.

        This overall view is also in the context that we have spent billions, if not trillions, on the “war on terror” and have almost nothing to show for it. There is no pacified, productive Germany or Japan in our wake. Instead, the U.S. military has become the chief exporter of delusion, not least of all because it was starting with the assumption that Islam is a “religion of peace.” We neither forthrightly can assess either our enemies nor our own ability to fight those enemies. Other political or utopian goals take precedence.

        The debacle of the “war on terror” is by no means the fault of women in the military, but it is part of the same symptom. Utopian internationalist goals of the Progressives (which deny reality) mesh with the utopian social goals (which deny reality).

        Our culture is working hard to make women into men and men into women. I would love to have your daughter write a real and thoughtful piece on why she joined the military in the first place. Men are born to war and need to curb their natural instinct to violence. What does it say about the culture at large that it produces women who want to join in? How can we, as conservatives, praise women in the military where killing and violence are the necessary norm and then lament abortion or the rest of the coarsening of society?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, it’s an observable fact that men appreciate strong women, whatever the reason is. I believe I’ve mentioned the incident at the beginning of Murder USA in which a liberal woman shopkeeper in San Francisco, robbed several times, bought a gun and stopped the next robber in his tracks. She received offers of marriage from men who heard about it. Granted, sending such an offer to someone you’ve never met and only know about one incident is a bit nutty, but it’s still an indication.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I guess we could argue in circles on this: Men appreciate strong women. But it must be said, some men appreciate demure women. Neither has much to do with the price of tea in China (unless we get to the indoctrination factor). The unspoken and entirely offensive thing to acknowledge is that our Leftist-based gender-bending culture has taught us that in order for there to be equality between women and men, we must ignore the difference. We must pretend that women can always do the same job as men, even if with the one hand we say this and with the other hand we lower the standards in order to try to make it so.

            If there is no other way for a modern culture to exist but in a semi-consciously donned illusion then so be it. We’re left then to shoot the messenger and make tangential arguments like “some men appreciate strong women.”

            As your online truth detector, I would say that men have been indoctrinated into pretending to like strong women, for the alternative is to be ostracized.

            I don’t at all mind strong women such as Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, or the pioneering women who built this country. But there is absolutely no way for conservatism to exist as an ideology if we play the ratchet game and we treat “girl power” as an always-laudable thing. I don’t. I’m no more capable of being a good soldier than most women. Not all men are suitable to be soldiers. But what can be said is that soldiering has almost entirely been a male thing. And it’s one thing for women to join in combat roles whereby the technology replaces muscle. It’s another thing to, in effect, join in this modern feminist “girl power” shtick and pretend that there is no difference between men and women because, well, you’d better as hell not admit to anything else.

  2. David Ray says:

    Trump did a nausiating suck-up to ADM & their ethanol welfare queens in Iowa. At least Cruz held firm vowing to rid us of that entitlement in 5 years.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I like Ted Cruz. He’s my first choice by a long shot. And I understand why many conservatives have embraced Trump. We’ve tried giving our allegiance to those who professed conservative values and then changed their stripes as soon as they got elected. Trump is at least not a member of the Republican Establishment.

      But he is a member of New York liberalism. We can quibble about the difference between socialism and whatever, but nothing in Trump’s makeup suggests he would do anything to restrain government. Much like the Republican Establishment, they see government as the legitimate means to their end. They just want to run it differently.

      The odd thing is to see all these bamboozled (or just dishonest) chirping conservatives in the commentariat who profess a grand dislike for Trump. But Trump simple embraces all the values that the GOP Establishment embraces, and these are liberal, Big Government values. If anything, Trump would simply take the GOP faster to where it is already heading.

      Why they should not embrace him is obvious to me: There is a lot of deceit going on in the eGOP and their lackeys. They are good at giving conservative-speak. They may even believe their own rhetoric at times. But Trump doesn’t even pretend to be a conservative (for the most part). He blows the lid off the dishonest game that the GOP has been running. The GOP is liberal and embraces liberal values, despite the dishonest veneer that they are their conservative commentariat lackeys try to put on it. Trump’s very presence embarrasses them because it gives the game up. They couldn’t embrace Trump because it would be more difficult to pretend that Trump was “severely” conservative or any other kind of conservative.

      We have been sold out for a long time now by the Jonah Goldbergs, Kevin Williamsons, George Wills, etc. They may talk a good talk at times but none of them actually support conservatism other than in talk. The gorillas in the room that no one will talk about continue to be: feminism, socialism, and the policies that undermine the only entity capable of supporting people in a healthy way as an alternative to the Big Sister state: the family.

      When Jonah Goldberg embraced gay marriage, for instance, he have no thought to the anti-family juggernaut that the gay agenda is striving for. Feminism (see the article I linked to above) continues to undermine our military. But who will forthrightly speaks about these issues? The state continues to expand and is playing the role of the surrogate spouse or parent, and who will tally up the wreckage this creates?

      “We’re all socialists” now is a done deal. The idea of personal responsibility is gone. More than that, we have become a truly atheistic society. If you believe that our lives are part of a larger continuum then you’re not going to sell out the founding principles of your country for mere “free stuff.” That people do shows you that despite the many who claim to believe in God, they do not. God is just a thin veneer, another type of entitlement program for them, a boost to their self-esteem, a bit of adrenaline for their self-absorbed narcissism.

      There are consequences to becoming a socialist country. Do you hear Trump talking about that? Anyone? The various gorillas in the living room remain uncommented on.

      • GHG says:

        Well said Brad.

        I’m by nature an upbeat, “glass half full” person. I’ve always seen myself as being blessed, not victimized in any way. I attribute this outlook on life, in large measure, to my Christian faith. Even when I get down about the direction my country is headed, I know that God is in his Heaven and His will be done.

        So perhaps “America” has run it’s course. If it has to be that way, as sad as that is to even contemplate, I still feel blessed in so many ways. The godless forces that are driving my country into the abyss will not separate me from God. This I know. Life is good.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          So perhaps “America” has run it’s course.

          If history is progressive — primitive man -> law revealed to Jewish man -> a universalized law via Christ and beyond the confines of the Jewish tribe — then what we are seeing is a rebellion, a regression of the human path and not, as the socialists would say, an “evolution” of mankind.

          My older brother believes that man, on earth, is in outright rebellion to God and that there are other planets in the galaxy (the vast majority) where this is not so. That would make him a “galaxy half full” kind of person, I guess.

          America and The West are obviously showing all the signs of a civilization bored with itself, even hostile to itself. Most of my secular friends would say that religion has no place in politics. Unfortunately, most of my Christian friends (but not the ones here) would probably agree. They say the greatest achievement of the devil was to convince people that he doesn’t exist. And if we think that there is some neutral “secular” space, then I would chock that up as a victory for Beelzebub.

          That’s all a way of saying that the true “polarization” of society is between the idiots and the wise people, and we are way short on wise people. You cannot have a good and free society based upon atheism. That won’t work for a number of proven reasons. There must be an overall good and stable framework that predates government, for government is (or ought to be) the expression of the people and not the other way around. That’s the real danger of socialism whereby people become brain-dead sycophants of the government, a warped and feeble product.

          Do I believe that Baby Jesus cares for me and will give me eternal life? I haven’t a clue. I’m not agnostic about that as much as I am doubtful that that’s the way it actually works. I think we are meant to be co-creators of this reality, not simple serfs or dependents. And that includes presidential candidates. I believe we put way too much emphasis on these leaders who are simply meant to be public servants. I no more define myself by my political party than I do by tattoos (which I have none).

          I think it’s a fine thing to be enthusiastic about one’s country, and to even get caught up a bit in the personalities. But the kind of creepy cult that surrounds Obama reminds me of some of the Trumpkins who surround The Donald. I think we need good men and women in public office, if only to keep the bad ones out. Other than that (and I have been deeply inside of politics, seeing it from the inside), believe me, you never want yourself or your nation to become identified with politics. Politics, like an anus, is a necessary thing. But it’s not the center of the world. Those who make it so have a problem.

          I don’t know if any of this is well said, Mr. Lesser, by I thank you for the earlier compliment. In accordance with what you wrote, let’s all make life be good despite the approaching abyss. We don’t have to live by the humorless misery and victimhood of the poisonous Left.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            It’s not exactly America and the West that have chosen to rebel against themselves. It’s the elite post-national globalists who have embraced multiculturalism and political correctness over Western civilization. Many, perhaps even most, ordinary citizens don’t join that rebellion, but for various reasons they haven’t been able to dislodge the elites from control.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Liberals are quite happy to admit that “we’re all socialists now” — until someone accuses them of being a socialist pejoratively. It’s like Muslims who have no problem with Mohammed having a child bride — who are very angry at anyone who points that out pejoratively.

    There’ve been a couple of cartoons recently at suggesting that New Hampshire should change its state motto to “Live for free or die.” Still, as far as I could tell last night, the Republicans seem to have gotten more total votes than the Plunderbund, and few if any of those voters did so on behalf of socialism (whatever might result in the end).

    • pst4usa says:

      Timothy, the reason that there were more votes for the Republicans in New Hampshire, (a very Democrap state), is because they have open primaries and more than half of the people that voted in the Republican primary were actually Democraps. I would think they would much prefer Trumplestilstilskin to anyone else to run against. If he were to win the nomination,they would be in a win win situation, a commie or a fascist, what could go wrong with that.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The primary isn’t fully open. Independents can vote in either primary, but not those registered in the other party. They can vote for other party candidates as write-ins, which is how Nixon got many Democrat votes and McCarthy and LBJ got many Republicans in 1968. (The Real Majority has the full totals for every presidential primary that year.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Pat, I agree with you about Trump’s appeal to Democrats. As Rush was saying yesterday, it’s astounding to watch the Establishment Republicans trash Trump when he is just the kind of “big tent” Republican that the Establishment says we need.

        I don’t think many Democrats will vote for Trump in order to ensure that the GOP nominates a weak candidate. I think Trump has very broad-based appealed. I think his correct and rational stance on immigration (assuming he means it, which I do not) has broad appeal, as well as his vocal chastising of political correctness.

        Yes, this situation is humorous and full of irony, for the very people who support political correctness via electing the various Marxist candidates lament the very thing they voted for. So if you want to say that Trump appeals to many low-information voters on the Left, I would not argue the point.

        Like you, I see only one of the candidates who is fit to be the president at this moment in history, and that man is Ted Cruz. People such as Rush Limbaugh have lost a bit of credibility when they say “Any of the above candidates is an improvement over what the Democrats have to offer.” I certainly don’t believe that in the case of Trump, Bush, or Carly. To me, it’s the same brand in just a different package. And it doesn’t matter one whit if, like Hillary did, these GOP candidates never worshipped at the altar of Saul Alinsky if they further (unknowingly or otherwise) that same agenda. The only candidate with any credible promise of actually ratcheting back is Ted Cruz, with the possible (although remote, in my opinion) exception of Donald Trump regarding immigration.

        The amazing thing to see is that, according to this info, Jeb! Bush couldn’t buy the election in New Hampshire, even though he spent $34 million compared to $3 million for Trump and $400,000 for Ted Cruz. And let us sing the praises of Fat Boy who at least, in that last debate, served the purpose of taking out Rubio.

        What a circus. What we can reasonably assume at this time is that the Democrat voters are split. Are we ready for an avowed socialist in Sanders instead of a stealth socialist (stealth to the low-information voters) in Hillary? I think we are. The Democrat process is rigged with the super delegates in order, it is said, to keep the Democrat voters from nominating a fringe candidate, which is their wont. Hillary could still get the nomination. But it’s clear that few people, other than those on the dole or man-hating feminists, are enthusiastic for her.

        Therefore if Trump is elected, he could well win in a landslide, garnering New York and possibly California. Trump is the GOP “big tent” (aka “liberal”) candidate the dishonest Establishment GOP and their blogging lackeys have long said we must have. But when it comes, they don’t get behind him. This is all the more reason to laugh at National Review and their ilk.

        Still, if Trump is elected and remains true on building a wall, ejecting as many illegals as practical, and banning Muslim immigration, that would be major.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Crossover votes have been significant for decades. Humphrey blamed his 1960 defeat in the Wisconsin primary on Catholic Republicans crossing over. Reagan won a lot of Democrat crossover votes in 1976 (and again in 1980), and Ford argued that they would then turn around and vote for Carter (which, after Ford defeated Reagan, probably was true). Most of the time they represent genuine support, but there have been exceptions (such as Democrats in Michigan in 2000 and Operation Chaos in 2008 — I wonder if Rush knew that Operation Chaos is also the title of a fine novel by conservative SF writer Poul Anderson).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            A Trump presidency would simply be a further consolidation of the ratchet Left and the further ratcheting of the entertainment culture into all aspects of culture. Whether he would actually be a good president, by relative standards, is still an open question…a question that clings to every president.

  4. pst4usa says:

    I have to ask, how is it that a state that has the motto of “Lie free or Die!” can give the majority of their primary votes to a Socialist and a Fascist? I suppose that means, that in the indoctrinated world of today, they chose die over live free.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s not socialism, Pat, if you call it “social justice” and wrap a veneer of Jesus around it. It’s not socialism, it’s just “making the wealthy pay their fair share.” It’s not socialism, it’s “the fair and equal distribution of resources.”

      I’ll guran-damn-tee you that 99 out of 100 people getting “free stuff” from the government (in whatever form) will not see it as socialism. It will be defined as something else.

      Thus the first lesson about socialism is that it corrupts people. I love what Tim noted that it now should be the “Live for free or die” state.

      • pst4usa says:

        I know Brad, you are right, but I would modify Tim’s line just a bit. “Live for free stuff or Die” state. It is implied but most folks are fairly dense and that will still fit in a tweet.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Don’t forget a lot of present-day New Hampshire voters moved came from Massachusetts.

      • pst4usa says:

        So Mr. Kung, do you think they are victims of too much immigration? I can see how that just might ruin a place, no wait, that’s what is happening here. As Jindal says, Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          do you think they are victims of too much immigration

          Absolutely! We have the same problem in Texas. Too many damn Yankees and Californians coming here.

          • pst4usa says:

            My brother and his wife moved to Dallas from OK. She is a big liberal and he wants to stay married so he is a Rino, do they qualify as damn Yankees being from northern Oklahoma?

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Why is California so full of “fruits and nuts?” Because it was populated by a bunch of displaced Okies!

              I say this as someone whose family, on the paternal side, left Oklahoma for California in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

        • David Ray says:

          Rothham England screams that profound statement.

          That prick Said who shot his two daughters here in Irving, Tx also never assimilated. (Rumor has it that he deemed it “honorable”.)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      to a Socialist and a Fascist

      I doubt Trump has much of a thought-out political philosophy. As I have said before, he is a deal maker and making the deal is what motivates him. For this reason, his pronouncements will tend to be all over the place.

      • pst4usa says:

        I think he has a serious potential to be a fascist. Not from a political ideology or philosophy. He has an ego larger than 0bama’s, and given the power he would go down the road that the Constitution or any limitations on his power just do not apply to him. In my oppinion anyway.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I am of the opinion that the Obamanation has set the stage for future presidents to rule extra-constitutionally. He crossed lines and set precedents which cannot be ignored.

          What advantage would a Republican president have by adhering to the constitution? If he did, all he would be doing is treading water until the next Democrat came into office, who would rule by fiat as Leftists are wont to do. In effect, he would be ceding the country to the Left.

          We are in a very dangerous situation and the only way out, as far as I can see, is a convention of the States.

          • pst4usa says:

            I am one of about 100 volunteers here in Washington State working to get an Article V convention of states, so I am in complete agreement with you on that point. But if Cruz were to do the things he says he will do, like wipe out all of the illegal executive orders, done by 0bama and other presidents as well; get rid of a number cabinet positions and the departments that have been spawned by them; dump 0bamacare and replace it with a free market healthcare system and more; all of those things might inspire some of the yutes to enjoy capitalism and return to an entrepreneurial can do country, if that were to happen, the left will be scrambling to get back into power for a while. I agree that we are on that edge of a cliff, if we do not turn it around, we will surely Bern and Crash.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    There are some interesting things to note here. For one thing, the 2 major candidates who made the least efforts in New Hampshire were Trump (for whom the state was a good fit, and he tried about as hard as he does everywhere) and Cruz (for whom the state was a poor fit (the least religious state in the country), so he made a relatively modest effort). In particular, Cruz spent under a million dollars ($580,000 according to one estimate I saw) compared to $3 million from Trump, $35 million by Bush, and amounts in between the last 2 by Kasich, Rubio, and Christie. Because he spent less than anyone else, Cruz has the most money going into the mostly Southern primaries of the next month. He also has an excellent organization and data management — and much more sympathetic areas. And the Establishment still has 3 candidates to choose from.

  6. Lucia says:

    I’m a little late coming into this thread, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in about women in combat. I grew up in a military family and am proud of my father’s service and my mother’s as an officer’s wife. But I object to the idea of women becoming killing machines, and refuse to accept the propaganda from the entertainment industry that women can kill as efficiently as men (some of their stunts are laughable) and still have a soft feminine heart. I’m aware that frontier women were able to kill anything and anyone to protect their families, and I would do the same if push came to shove, but training to be a soldier is a different matter.

    I would continue but for some dumb reason a red line has appeared under my typed words, I can’t figure out how to get rid of it and it’s bugging me.

  7. Steve Lancaster says:

    As an old Corps Marine and retired spook I agree with you. However, the world has changed many critical MOS are open to women and in current and future wars they will be asked to pick up a weapon and stand to post. I want them capable of defending themselves and others which means that they must acquire the skills necessary. Currently women in all services get some of the fundamentals in basic, but followup training in the advanced infantry schools is an option rather than a requirement.

  8. Lucia says:

    Steve makes a good point about warfare changing and the need for women to know how to handle a lethal weapon and themselves under battle conditions. My concern with the fact that advanced infantry school currently being an option is whether or not it will always remain so. Will the draft return? Ever? Once women become a common part of the infantry, will that ever be reversed?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It will take a while for women to become a significant percentage of infantry combatants. How long depends on how often we can elect presidents who place reality and the national interest above pandering to the femocrats.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *