Tag: politics

New Hampshire: Trump, Sanders win

This is your open thread to discuss the New Hampshire results. If Hillary was anyone but Hillary, the media would be pronouncing her dead. I suppose we’ll have to wait for Super Tuesday before they can make the definitive case.

UPDATE: Bernie Sanders wins!

Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

Donald Trump also did better than expected.

  • Donald Trump 35.1%
  • John Kasich 15.9%
  • Ted Cruz 11.7%
  • Jeb Bush 11.1%
  • Marco Rubio 10.7%
  • Chris Christie 7.5%
  • Carly Fiorina 4.1%
  • Ben Carson 2.3 

Interesting to see that Carson is apparently willing to throw his support to Trump. As I mentioned previously, Carson could help Trump seal the deal. I expect that will not have escaped Trump’s attention and that The Art of the Deal author will be in touch with him sooner rather than later. He won’t offer him VP, though, but a Cabinet seat.

Mailvox: a woman’s take on female suffrage

It’s nice to see a woman actually reflect upon the issue rather than reacting emotionally to it. Ironically, only women who could most likely be trusted with the vote are able to do so. I’ve yet to run into a woman who is able to even try to defend female suffrage on any basis beyond a) personal feelings, b) “fairness”, and c) an appeal to the Unicorn of Equality.

I read “Mailvox: Stampeding the Sheep” with great interest.  The first time I ever heard someone suggest that women should not vote was my mother when I was a child.  I am 47 years old so it was some years ago.  The second time I heard this was from you.  I use to think my mom was just nuts, but her words left me wondering.  Here’s why:

  • Invincible:  I believed I could do everything a man could.  I graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, served as an intel and targeting officer for 7 years before realizing my true vocation was wife and mother.  Although my mom despised women in general, she hated the idea that I married (right after graduating) and started to have kids.  She was terrified I would be completely dependent on a man like she was.  Why is this important?  Simply because the feminists have ingrained in my generation a complete (and unreasonable) fear of male dominance.
  • Vote:  Why should women not vote?  I thought about this for years.  I consider myself more intelligent, more politically astute, and more educated/well-read than most men.  However, that does not outweigh one important limitation:  emotion.  This is what you brought up in your post.  Unlike men, women must be TAUGHT not to act on their emotions.  For us, this is an immediate response to whatever happens around us (perhaps this is one of the reasons we immediately bond with our babies so it’s not a bad thing if used correctly).  Men, on the other hand, hold back their emotions, but if they do not eventually act, they explode.  My experience tells me women explode immediately without thought and men explode later with thought.  Most women vote because of how they FEEL.  Bad move.  It has destroyed our societies and made us completely dependent on government.
  • Need: Women also have an innate need to be cared for, protected, and loved.  This is why the male European inaction regarding the Muslim invasion is so appalling.  The problem is the Baby Boomers are responsible for two generations (Gen X and the Millennials) that are incapable of doing anything (Yes, I blame the Baby Boomers, but I also blame the so called Greatest Generation who coddled, spoiled, and raised them).  Women just replaced their men with a colder, harsher, less faithful spouse, the government.  Unfortunately, while men are neutered, women think they are Black Widow.
  • Black Widow:  I really believed I could be as strong, as fast, and as fierce as any man.  I just had to work hard.  Why?  Because the feminists who indoctrinated me said so.  I’m ex military, dabbled in martial arts, love cross-fit, and keep a personal trainer.  No matter what I try to do physically, I CANNOT compete with a man (OK, I can compete with the young teenage boys).  The only thing that evens out this playing field is a gun (arm up feminists because men aren’t going to help you).  The feminists set their little darling daughters up for complete failure.  We could not compete in this way, but our mom’s insisted our self-worth must be measured against a man’s.  What did that mean?  ALL women are failures by this standard.  That reality hit me hard because it meant women are useless (this kind of supports the Muslim teachings doesn’t it?  Thanks, feminists.  No wonder you are silent with Islamic FGM)
  • Baby Making:  Yep.  This is what completes a woman.  It is not to say that some women cannot succeed in careers.  Many have exceptional skills and should pursue their God given talent.  However, the feminists told us making babies is for stupid women (you know, the surrogates they pay to have their babies for them).  That’s NOT true.  The first time I felt that I actually accomplished something, was the day I first held my daughter. 
  • Men:  My fear of only men having the vote was unfounded.  My man would NEVER vote against his family’s best interest.  Neither would any man I know.  There is a trade off, however.  Men, you need to man up and demand your rights.  That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you. This is what distinguishes the Christian West from the rest of the world.  As life-bearers, women continue life, nurture it, and sustain it.  We pass on culture, tradition, and history.  This is why Islam cannot coincide with Christians:  they hate, despise, and denigrate women.  I believe the primary reason the Islamic world is such a hellhole is because the proper role of women was annihilated.  Well, the West has also harmed the proper role of women, just not to the same degree as Islam (Islam also has the benefit of more than 1000 years to make their brain damage permanent).  Men must reassert their proper place and women need to climb back onto their pedestal. 

I have so much more to say, but I am grateful if you read this.  Mr. Day, you are right and if more men stand up, women will be much happier.  Most of my generation don’t even know what happened because we never saw what the Baby Boomers had (their moms in their proper and much happier roles in the home).  I’ve seen both sides of this issue.  The feminists built a very dark place for their daughters.  Will we recognize what they did before it comes crashing down?  I doubt it.  Perhaps Islam will open women’s eyes to what they have and thank God everyday for Christianity.  If we want men to protect us, we cannot vote against them.  They alone must have this power.

The reality is that female suffrage can only be eliminated through despotism, most likely of the sort that comes about through societal collapse. The one possible non-catastrophic solution, which is probably already too late now that Obama and Mutti Merkel have combined to unleash a Muslim invasion of the West, is direct democracy.

And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization.

Rand Paul drops out

Showing more sense than Jeb Bush and the other no-hopers, Sen. Rand Paul ends his presidential campaign:

Rand Paul on Wednesday dropped out of the race for president, saying he will now focus on his reelection to the U.S. Senate.

“It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty,” Paul said in a statement.

It’s a pity, as his father’s supporters were more than ready to support him, but Paul shot his presidential aspirations in the foot by moving to the center even as the center was moving to the nationalist right.

Despite being good on foreign policy, he got it hopelessly wrong on immigration and that rendered him moot in 2016. He’s not bad, as politicians go, but he’s simply not worthy of carrying his father’s torch nor is he capable of doing so.

Iowa: Cruz 28, Trump 24, Rubio 23

First, congratulations to Farmer Tom, who got the order correct. Second, and unexpectedly, the big news isn’t on the Republican side, but on the Democratic one, as Bernie Sanders shocked the Clinton campaign by effectively fighting Hillary to a draw.

Third, the real score is this: Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3. That’s how many delegates were awarded.

The only real surprise on the Republican side is that Rubio did much better than anyone expected, including the pollsters. While the media narrative is that Trump is done and dusted, they’ve been saying the exact same thing since last August, so that’s entirely irrelevant. Given that the headline two days ago was “Donald Trump reclaims lead in latest Iowa Poll”, it should be obvious that he was never the favorite in Iowa, and indeed, it looks rather like the GOP and the media colluded to try to make a result that would have been considered beyond Trump’s reach six months ago appear like a disappointing, campaign-destroying failure. As for the record turnout on the Republican side, I suspect it happened for much the same reason it did in the Hugos last year; to stop the interloper.

The only serious candidate who is done now is Jeb, and it appears the establishment will be lining up behind Rubio in his place. Jeb himself will probably follow suit after New Hampshire. I think Cruz will ultimately be the real GOPe candidate as he is the more formidable of the two Cubans. It’s now a three-man race; what would throw a real twist into it is if Trump can win Ben Carson’s support. Forget Trump-Cruz, the most politically effective combination would be Trump-Carson.

Think about it. Trump’s two main weaknesses with Republicans is religion and character. Besides being black, Carson’s two greatest strengths are religion and character. And Trump is already popular among blacks due to his big-man swagger, so if I’m Trump, I’m getting together with Carson and working out a deal to be announced after New Hampshire, but before South Carolina.

And if I can see it, I expect Trump can see it too.

Now onto New Hampshire, where it’s going to be interesting to see how the Iowa results affect the Democratic primary. Sanders is going to win, but how will it affect the race if he crushes Hillary there?

One last thing: say what you will about Trump, but he makes the campaign about 200 percent more interesting. I met him back in 1988 at the Republican convention in New Orleans and he’s very likable. What seems blustery and over-the-top on camera comes off as more expansive and charming in person. Wherever he is, there is a lot of laughter, and not all of it is obsequious. The man is genuinely funny. I mean, who else would end a concession speech like this?

“I don’t know who’s going to win between Bernie and Hillary. I don’t know what’s going to happen with Hillary, she’s got other problems, maybe bigger than the problems she’s got, in terms of nominations, but we’ve had so many different indications, and polls that we beat her, and we beat her easily. And we will go on to get the Republican nomination, and we will go on to easily beat Hillary, or Bernie, or whoever the hell they throw up there. Iowa, we love you. We thank you. You’re special. We will be back many, many times. In fact, I think I might come here and buy a farm, I love it.”

And that’s why the American public loves Trump and the establishment fears him. You just can’t be entirely sure he won’t actually go and do it.

A man ahead of his time

20 years ago, Sam Francis foresaw something akin to The Trumpening in America’s political future:

What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs? What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better health care at a reasonable price? What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society — something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America — you simply promised to restore the Middle American core — the economic and cultural losers of globalization — to their rightful place in America? What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

That’s pretty much the advice that columnist Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in a 1996 essay, “From Household to Nation,” in Chronicles magazine. Samuel Francis was a paleo-conservative intellectual who died in 2005. Earlier in his career he helped Senator East of North Carolina oppose the Martin Luther King holiday. He wrote a white paper recommending the Reagan White House use its law enforcement powers to break up and harass left-wing groups. He was an intellectual disciple of James Burnham’s political realism, and Francis’ political analysis always had a residue of Burnham’s Marxist sociology about it. He argued that the political right needed to stop playing defense — the globalist left won the political and cultural war a long time ago — and should instead adopt the insurgent strategy of communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Francis eventually turned into a something resembling an all-out white nationalist, penning his most racist material under a pen name. Buchanan didn’t take Francis’ advice in 1996, not entirely. But 20 years later, “From Household to Nation,” reads like a political manifesto from which the Trump campaign springs.

To simplify Francis’ theory: There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite. These Middle Americans see jobs disappearing to Asia and increased competition from immigrants. Most of them feel threatened by cultural liberalism, at least the type that sees Middle Americans as loathsome white bigots. But they are also threatened by conservatives who would take away their Medicare, hand their Social Security earnings to fund-managers in Connecticut, and cut off their unemployment too.

I myself have been writing about America’s bi-factional ruling party for more than twelve years, but only recently has it seemed that people are beginning to wake up to the fact that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are genuinely on the side of the average white Americans who comprise the genuine American nation.

Sooner or later, all politics inevitably becomes tribal, because the only scenario in which so-called post-tribal politics is possible is in a formerly homogeneous nation that is in the early stages of becoming heterogeneous. In other words, there is no such thing as “post-tribal” politics, there is only pre-tribal politics.

And tribal politics is the larval form of war.

Trump takes the lead

Apparently blowing off the final debate like a boss was the right thing to do in the Iowa voters’ eyes. If, that is, the media has gotten the final pre-caucus poll more or less right:

Donald Trump has overtaken Ted Cruz in the final days before Iowa’s caucuses, with the fate of the race closely tied to the size of Monday evening’s turnout, especially among evangelical voters and those attending for the first time, a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows.

The findings before the first ballots are cast in the 2016 presidential nomination race shows Trump with the support of 28 percent of likely caucus-goers, followed by 23 percent for the Texas senator and 15 percent for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

The billionaire real estate mogul leads Cruz among those who say they definitely plan to attend, 30 percent to 26 percent. With the less committed—those who say they’ll probably attend—Trump also beats Cruz, 27 percent to 21 percent.

“Trump is leading with both the inner core of the caucus universe and the fringe—that’s what any candidate would want,” said longtime Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the survey for the news organizations.

If Trump does even better than indicated, we’ll know that the poll organizations were playing games and trying to suppress Trump’s numbers; in the UK, ALL the polls were “corrected” at the very end in order to try to make themselves look less hopelessly wrong in comparison with the actual vote.

So, this “late move” may be nothing more than the media bringing the polls more in line with the expected result.

That doesn’t mean Trump will win Iowa. We have, after all, been repeatedly informed by those on the ground that he will not do so. So, like everyone else, we’ll just have to wait and see.

The Democratic race is more interesting than anyone would have thought; Hillary Clinton is simply a terrible candidate who can’t win an even remotely competitive election. Even liberal voters dislike her because she is a terrible, dishonest person, even as politicians go. If she didn’t have the entire weight of the bifactional establishment behind her – note how even establishment Republicans have said they would back her over Trump – she would have numbers that made Carly Fiorina’s look good.

How Fox can convince Donald Trump

To show up for the Republican debate on their news channel:

Donald Trump will widen a rupture between his supporters and the Republican Party establishment on Thursday when he boycotts a presidential debate in a snub to Fox News only days before the 2016 election season starts in earnest.

The billionaire front-runner for the Republican nomination will instead host his own event in Iowa during the Fox News debate, likely damaging prime time TV ratings of the most powerful media force in Republican politics.

Trump withdrew from the encounter in a spat with network anchor Megyn Kelly who he accuses of treating him unfairly.

“The ‘debate’ tonight will be a total disaster,” Trump said in a Twitter post on Thursday morning. “Low ratings with advertisers and advertising rates dropping like a rock. I hate to see this.”

At this point, this is the only way Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch could convince Trump to show up for the Fox event:

Like. A. Boss.

Trump has Fox and O’Reilly reduced to the state of a teenage girl begging the boyfriend who just dumped her to please, please, please just consider taking her back:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday night lashed out at Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly in his first appearance on the network since he announced he’d boycott the next GOP debate.

He also refused to reconsider his decision to sit out the network’s Thursday night debate – the last before the Iowa caucuses in five days – and said he’d move forward with his own competing event to raise money for wounded veterans.

Speaking on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Trump continued his long-running feud with Kelly, who he has been criticizing ever since she challenged him on his past derogatory remarks about women at the first GOP debate in August.

“I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly,” Trump said. “I don’t think she’s good at what she does and I think she’s highly overrated. And frankly, she’s a moderator; I thought her question last time was ridiculous.”

Kelly is also set to moderate Thursday night’s debate on Fox News.

Trump is instead holding a rally in Des Moines at the same time as the Republican debate that he says will raise money for wounded veterans.

In the contentious interview with O’Reilly, Trump rebuffed the anchor’s attempts to convince him that he’s making a grave error by skipping the debate.

“I believe personally that you want to improve the country,” O’Reilly said. “By doing this, you miss the opportunity to convince others … that is true.

“You have in this debate format the upper hand — you have sixty seconds off the top to tell the moderator, ‘You’re a pinhead, you’re off the mark and here’s what I want to say’. By walking away from it, you lose the opportunity to persuade people you are a strong leader.”

Yeah, that’s the thing, Bill. By walking away, Donald Trump IS persuading people that he is a strong leader, one who isn’t beholden to the media. Walking away is Alpha. Supplication, especially to a woman, is Delta-Gamma.

Just the fact that Trump is willing to publicly dismiss the overrated Kelly as being “highly overrated” should be enough reason to consider voting for the man. Not even Reagan was that bold in dismissing the media or the progressive sex.