Right Wing Fighter

Category: Donald Trump

Cruz at Convetion: “Vote Your Conscience,” Doesn’t Endorse Trump

Well, this is interesting.

Ted Cruz, during his speech, didn’t endorse Trump and actually told viewers to “vote their conscience” in November.

During the primary, vote your conscience was his signal for “Don’t vote for that immoral New Yorker. Vote for me, the man that shares your values.”

He used the line over and over during the primary, and that was its meaning.

For him to say that at the convention that has nominated Trump by a 500 delegate margin is…strange? I can’t think of anyone with as much unbounded ambition as to not endorse the candidate. Even Reagan endorsed Gerald Ford, when Ford beat him by less than a hundred delegates for the nomination.

The crowd hated Cruz’s statement. They started booing him and chanting “endorse Trump.” They were right.

Cruz has fed a nice little item to the media to attack Trump with. They can take the “evangelical” Cruz’s non-endorsement and wave it around to “show” that Trump hasn’t united the party. Will it make much difference? I don’t know. But handing the opposition such a nice little soundbite is a lousy thing to do. It reflects on Cruz very badly.

For a long time I’ve considered Cruz to be abnormally ambitious. Now I think he may be ambitious to the point of political self-destruction. He can never seem to take a bow and let another run the show. Even during his speech, it had the bizarre feeling of being a campaign rally for him. He acted like everyone at the convention was there to hear him speak.

Strange man.

Donald Trump has won the Nomination

Welp, the impossible day has arrived: Donald Trump is officially the nominee of the Republican party.

He’s won the nomination by over 1700 delegates. He needed 1,237 to win. Hardly a fringe victory. It’s almost as if the Republican base actually wants Trump to be the nominee.

So I wonder if Bill Kristol will resign from punditry? He was one of the loudest anti-Trump guys out there. Long ago he was predicting Trump would never win. Honestly, I wonder why anyone listens to Kristol. He’s always wrong.

I guess it’s because he says the right things, not true things.

I wonder if all those honorable men who pledged to support the nominee, whoever he was, are going to follow their word.


In other worlds, I just caught a headline from rollingstone.com:

“R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party”

Good thing we have conscientious people like the folks at Rolling Stone to watch out for us.

Mitt Romney’s Mind

I’d like to make a little foray into Mitt Romney’s mind. I recognize this is a few years late: Romney has departed the political scene. But still I think it will be fun and instructive.

Here, at bottom, is Romney’s mind: it is rationalistic. It’s not particularly penetrating. He is intelligent without being clear-sighted. He is more clear-sighted than the average politician, but that’s not saying much. For the most part, he is a calculator, as described in my post on knowledge.

As such, he gets his facts from others and draws lines between them. He does not make up his mind on his own. It’s a well known fact that he gathers together people that he trusts, has them talk it out, and simply notes their opinions and manages the conversation. He has been described, not as a leader, but as a chairman of the board. This is exactly correct, for it’s how he thinks. He does not depend on himself to furnish facts. He depends on others for that. What he does is measures them against one another, and forms his plans off of the result.

This is what separates him from the average American. It’s also what doomed him with the electorate. Let me explain:

What Romney does is gathers information from people he trusts, and then calculates an answer. The average American does not do that. The average Joe is more intuitive about what he does. Things have a certain “feel” to them when they’re right or wrong, and John Doe tends to go with that feeling. He is not “intuitive” through and through. But he’s more intuitive than Romney.

This, without overstatement, horrifies Romney. His world consists of solid information, furnished by trusted sources, which is connected by logic. The idea of intuiting anything is unstable and reckless to him. The only sensible course, in Romney’s mind, is to work out everything rationally. That is why during debates, he practically looked like a mannequin: everything about him, from his clothes to his words, was methodically laid out. There was no spontaneity to him at all.

To Romney, the average American is slapdash. Since to Romney the only way to think is in the manner described above, he considers the average Joe to be unable to run his life. Only logic – cool, mathematical logic – can show the way. Anything else is just emotion and personal taste. It’s subjective, self-serving fancy.

This had two very large effects on Romney’s mind.

First, he never trusted that the American people would understand what he was saying or doing. We all tend to see things from our own point of view. Now, if it’s true that Americans are emotional, then they’ll interpret Romney’s actions from an emotional standpoint. They wont say to themselves, “What cool, logical motive made him do that?” Instead, they’ll say, “Hey! What self-serving, egotistical motive made him do that?” In short, they wont understand where he’s coming from. They’ll look at his acts and words, and draw the wrong conclusion because they have the wrong starting point.

This caused him to say and do as little as possible that wasn’t pre-thought out. He figured that the supposedly emotional, volatile American people must be handled with extreme care if they were to not run away with emotionally charged misconceptions.

This distrust showed through. People could see he was uneasy any time he talked to the public. He was always double cautious not to say anything that wasn’t scripted. The audience picked this up, and rightly concluded that Romney wasn’t like them. He wasn’t. And that’s why he didn’t understand them.

The American people are not emotional grenades waiting to go off. But Romney thought they were, and it kept him from ever connecting with them.

The second effect on Romney’s mind was this: thinking the American people emotional and unsteady, he thought they couldn’t run their own lives. As such he thought it was better to have what he considered rational people run the people’s lives. That is why he never really attacked Obamacare: he agreed with it in principle, because he thought the people unable to govern themselves.

This is another thing that caused distrust. The audiences he spoke to could feel that he didn’t really consider them sensible people. The fact that he never spelled out his plans proves this.

Consider Trump as a counter-point: he streams his thinking out to the audience because he fully believes they can understand what he’s saying. He takes little verbal short-cuts, uses slang, and stops himself mid-sentence sometimes because he trusts the audience will get his meaning. He also frequently makes faces and uses hand gestures to convey his meaning. Again, because he trusts they’ll understand him.

With Romney, it was much more of a “I’m an expert. I’ll make your life better” approach. He would never delve into his thinking or his plans at all. He didn’t think people could actually understand him. This did not take any emotional form. He was never overcome with a sense of contempt for his audience. But all the same, in his cool, mathematical way, he thought they couldn’t understand. As such, he never tried to bring them into his thinking. He never told them what he thought. He just spelled out in some detail what the results would be: more jobs, better foreign policy, and so forth.

Romney acted more like an insurance salesman that believes his aged customers can’t understand their policy. He tells them it will be good for them. He tries reluctantly to remove their fears. But he never delves into the policy at all. He doesn’t go along, point by point, and talk to them about the policy. He’s not trying to railroad them into it: he simply thinks they can’t understand it. Romney acted that way, and people frequently came away feeling a little stupid after hearing him speak. They felt like they’d been treated as if they couldn’t understand political goings-on.

Thus Romney was handicapped from the start. He won the primary with only a small amount of support. And he never stirred up the country to vote for him in the general election. By thinking that his mind and the voter’s minds were so different, he never approached them as trustworthy people. There was always distance – coldness. If there is anything that is universally disqualifying in politics, it’s distance.

Trump has indeed picked Pence

The rumors were true: Trump has picked Pence.

I’m not happy about it but I’m not bent out of shape by it either. Reagan made a similar move to win the moderates back in 1980 when he picked H.W. Bush as his running mate. Bush exerted little to no influence over Reagan’s direction. I think it will be the same with Trump.

The primary proved that nobody runs Trump but Trump. I highly doubt he’s the sort of man to be driven around by his VP.

If he were so easy to manipulate, what use would he be as president anyhow?

I don’t consider this pick to be a betrayal of reforming trade, immigration, or our foreign policy. Again, Bush Senior supported the populist, pro-growth policies of Reagan even though he disagreed with them. It’s certain that Trump extracted such a promise from Pence before picking him. Trump is far too good a businessman to have a divided ship before even sailing out of port.

As such, I believe Pence will be a disappointing but harmless bookend in Trump’s administration, should he win.

Trump’s VP Pick; Rumors Say it’s Mike Pence

Rumors are circulating that Trump is going to pick Mike Pence for VP.

I certainly hope not. Pence is an amnesty man and a go-along-get-along type of Republican. He backed and worked hard to get amnesty passed back during George W. Bush’s administration. Additionally, he’s a free-trade, business-first Republican.

Picking Pence would be a huge mistake.

I hope instead that Trump will pick Jeff Sessions. Sessions is a nationalist and a workers-first man. He’s one of the best men in politics on the issue of immigration. Additionally, he’s got the right temperament for VP.

What I’d like to see is Trump pick Sessions for his first term. Sessions is 69, and as such he’s too old to take over for Trump after eight years. The best thing would be for Trump to pick him for the first four years of his administration, and then pick a younger man for the second four years. The immigration fight will be hottest in Trump’s first term, and it will be important to have an experienced, old hand at the issue. Additionally, Trump will need a man he can trust.

With Trump, immigration will be the central issue. This will pull a lot of legitimate, America-first immigration patriots out of the woodwork. Thus I expect there would be plenty of choices for VP after the battle is over. There aren’t that many to choose from right now. But after four years of battle, the line will have been drawn and sides will have been chosen. It will be pretty easy to find a good man for the job then.

But for right now, Sessions is the best man.

Joni Ernst Essentially Turns Down VP

From, ahem, Politico:

“I made that very clear to him that I’m focused on Iowa. I feel that I have a lot more to do in the United States Senate. And Iowa is where my heart is,” Ernst said Wednesday. “I’m just getting started here. I have a great partner with Chuck Grassley, we’ve been able to accomplish a lot. And I think that President Trump will need some great assistance in the United States Senate and I can provide that.”


Ernst, contrary some silly people, is not a good person for VP. She’s essentially an establishmentarian. Anyone that has a great partnership with Chuch Grassley isn’t good for the country as VP.

Besides, I’m tired of her “mamma grizzly” nonsense. It started with Palin and Ernst has sort of adopted it. Surprisingly, many men have too. They have this bizarre liking for “strong” women, which just comes out to pushy women. Ernst is neither intelligent nor a good leader. Women generally aren’t good leaders. They aren’t made that way. As such, a “strong” woman is just a woman who shoves herself into the conversation.

I’m glad to see Ernst has taken herself out of consideration.

To explain my thinking a bit:

A leader is someone that can see what should be done. He is someone that knows how the world turns.

Imagine the world as a merry-go-round. We have to jump onto it or jump off of it as circumstances dictate. Now, a man that knows when and how to jump onto it can lead. But someone that doesn’t know and yet still wants to lead is just pushy.

Life, to many people, is chaos. It’s a swirling mass of thing going by too fast and with too little detail to be understood. As such, they follow leaders. Leaders are men who can see how the world is, and who have the strength to act on it.

Now, there are some people that want to be leaders, but who lack that critical ability to see. As such, they are just ignoramuses that are trying to push themselves to the top. We call them blowhards, egotists, and more impolite things. The reason is because we all know and feel the need for someone that can see. As such, we hate counterfeiters. We hate people that shove themselves into the conversation without anything to give. They’re just there because they like the laurels that leaders get.

History is full of men that didn’t see but wanted to be leaders anyhow. The earth is full of the graves of their followers.

There are also many men who did see. Take for instance George Washington, Bismarck, Churchill, Reagan. These men are rightly celebrated. One because they deserve it. But two because, by holding the real thing in front of our eyes constantly, we have a strong sense of what isn’t the real thing. People like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell: these are all pretenders. They all want to lead, because they like the rewards. But they don’t have the critical vision necessary to lead. They are blind leading the blind.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being blind. But a blind man shouldn’t try to lead. That’s why our politics is so frustrating in America: the few people who aren’t simply bought and paid for have no idea what they’re doing. They aren’t in politics because they know what to do and they’re there to do it. No. They’re there for the laurels. They usually end up complete, frustrating failures.

So that is why I don’t like Ernst. She’s a pushy, headstrong woman that wants to lead, but hasn’t the critical ability to see. As such, she’s no use to America as a politician.


A 2016 Election Poem

I’m sick of Obama, that terrible man,
Who’s hurt America all that he can.
But do not fret, for soon we will dump,
That terrible man, and replace him with Trump!

But this may not happen, if some on the right,
Keep pushing for Hillary, with all of their might.
They would prefer Clinton, though she they dread,
Rather than have Donald Trump as their head!

This is because, a globalist she,
Is less objectionable than Donald T;
For money is what makes their world go ’round,
And it may yet throw Populism to the ground.

This is the battle, this is the score,
The globalists with the People have started a war;
To control the government that has made them rich,
They’ll take no prisoners: this is politics.

Written by Yours Truly.

Gingrich Shouldn’t be Trump’s VP

Gingrich’s name is floating around as a possible VP for Trump.

Gingrich would be bad for Trump’s candidacy. He is a silly, half-baked intellectual without principle or substance. He goes where the winds blow. He also studiously avoids saying anything of any real weight. I’ve heard him in numerous interviews, particularly on Sean Hannity’s radio show: he always shields his statements in vagueness.

He has the substance of a jellyfish. A hard-hitting man like Trump doesn’t need a jellyfish backing him up.

Besides, Gingrich is an amnesty guy.

Trump would be better served picking a man like Sessions.

The Money Seekers

There’s a certain class of people that think in terms of money. They don’t simply want money: they actually measure the world in money terms.

This is why there are people that:

  • Measure military power by military spending;
  • Measure people by how much they make.

This is one reason why there’s a class of people in America that want to continue free trade policies as a matter of basic philosophy: they measure America’s stature by how much money it has.

Never mind that money without production power can make a nation both rich and weak at the same time. Money, in essence, is the power to get others to do things. If you go to war with those others, for instance, then you have no power at all. You’ll be conquered because your money was worthless.

This is something Trump understands but many in politics don’t: a nation that can’t produce can’t remain independent. This is because money, though it gets people to do things, can’t force them to do things. You can buy them off if they want to be bought off. But you can’t make anyone do anything: you have no real power. It depends on the willingness of others.

In most cases in private life this works. We rarely have to force people to do things. But in the life of nations it’s different. China’s trade war with us, for instance, couldn’t be bought off even if we did have money to give them. They would choose the long game: destroy our manufacturing now, to make us utterly dependent later.

This is one reason why they’re continuing their race to the bottom. China is not in good economic condition. Much of their economy is based on government infrastructure projects. They are doing what the Amazon company is doing: running at a loss now, to hurt the competition. Once the competition is crippled, they can raise prices. China’s goal is to destroy the manufacturing competition on a national scale. Once they’ve done so, they can raise prices at will.

If this sounds strange, it has happened in the past. In the 1970s the oil-producing Arab nations raised oil prices enormously in order to dictate our foreign policy. To an extent they succeeded. That’s partly why they’re trying to ruin our domestic oil production now: if we are independent energy-wise, they lose an enormous amount of power in the world.

Let me come back to the money-thinekrs: their thinking isn’t acquired but natural. It’s an extension of who they are. This is one reason that there is such a financial aspect to American politics: there is a class of people that only measure the world in terms of money. As such, they measure national achievement by how much money the country has.

I have little doubt that protectionist policies would make America less wealthy overall. But that doesn’t concern me. Protectionism would mean we’re producing again. As such, we’d have more real power than we’ve had in decades. What’s the point of money, nationally speaking, other than to give us the power to live our lives and be safe and healthy? If it fails to do so, it has no purpose.

Don’t Worry About Trump Losing

I’ve noticed that a lot of Trump supporters are nervous about Trump’s chances in the fall. This is based both on polls and habitual pessimism.

I’m not worried about Trump’s chances. Call me cautiously optimistic. I’m not sparkling with joy but I’m not worried. Polls are always biased, especially this far out. Additionally, Democrats tend to do better early on in presidential races. When the election gets closer, things always tighten up.

So don’t be worried about November. If you can volunteer, donate, or advocate, then do so. But do so to help build the future of America, and not to avert fear. I think we have good cause for optimism.