It appears that Thomas Sowell is going to vote for Trump.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9556/b...ary-daily-wire

Not 100% clear, but he first describes how either Trump or Hillary will be president. Not anyone else. Then says he will vote against Clinton.

I like it a lot. Both are battles against world views set on world domination. Freedom versus tyranny in both cases.

Why do you think it's a bad comparison?

Of course they won't, that's what I've been saying the whole time. And yet, they themselves are not authoritarian. So, again, let's say Paul Ryan is the nominee. The Atlantic does not endorse Clinton, and it's not because they are Paul Ryan fans. It's because Ryan, and the rest of the Republican establishment are, in fact, constitutionalists. To my point, because they are constitutionalists does not mean they will defend constitutionalism against authoritarianism. We already know that they will not, as they have already acquiesced to Donald Trump. So, when Donald Trump directs Congress to fund his deportation force, you can bet your ass that a deportation force will, in fact, come to be. As for what will happen in the event that the Supreme Court declares one of his actions unconstitutional, who knows? Two possibilities, he is forcibly removed from office, or there is blood in the streets. Under no circumstance will Donald Trump defer power to Supreme Court, or Congress, or whomever. And if you don't understand that, then you do not understand Trump. At all.

Here you're admitting that he hasn't tried to primary anyone. Somewhat strangly, you're saying that not only has he not tried, he has also failed laughably. How one can fail at something they haven't tried but suggested they would do is unclear. I'd like to go skydiving. But OH, I havent yet! I've failed horribly at skydiving!

The only reason he isn't openly, in no uncertain terms, calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton is that he will be arrested. That's it, the only reason. As president, we're talking about a man who thinks the military would not dare disobey an order. He's not accidentally saying these things. He's seeking power in order to crack skulls. Obviously, Congress could have him arrested. But would they? I don't think so.

Agreed. Thank you.

Hot take on Thomas Sowell from the Daily Wire. Just askin questions.

Maybe you're right. Who knows? I think it's just as likely that he has the intellectual capability, temperament, consistency and attention span of a five year old. Those things aren't entirely contradictory, but if I had to pick what worries me more about Trump it would be his being able to start a military action abroad and really just how humiliating and damaging to the US it would be to elect such an idiotic childish clown.

Yeah, ok, at this point el oh el at anyone taking this guy seriously or giving him the benefit of the doubt. The entire weight of the educated free world is pointing out what a disaster Trump would be but hey, pokerodox found, omg, A SCHOLARLY CONSERVATIVE who's endorsing Trump! What do you say to THAT, liberals?

Dude is either a troll or is just posting here in hopes of finding a way to still feel like a worthwhile human being when he goes to sleep at night knowing he is a Trump voter. Either way, he's failing.

@vixticator: I actually think you're right. If elected, Trump will up his threats of violence against those who dare defy him. But I also think, if elected, he's got a pretty high likelihood of being impeached. Congress would probably be itching to impeach him, ASAP, in fact. You'd get bipartisan support, lol. Dems get a minor consolation prize in no President Maniac and GOP establishment gets a person they would actually want in the presidency.

Hasten Dan - easiest ignore ever

They'd figure out how to use him. Impeaching him does them no good and just leaves them open to get primaried by his idiot army.

Apparently not one single newspaper has endorsed Trump, which is unprecedented. Going after the 1st Amendment might not have been the best move.

I never said I was just asking questions. My first post in this thread was very clear. I said there were some things I would research.

I guess it would depend on how well the Dems do in the Senate. It wouldn't be hard to see Trump giving enough reason to have every single Dem and independent voting for impeachment and then it wouldn't take many Republicans.

And that would leave us with President Funerals for Abortions ie Sharia Law.

Sorry. I gave in to the urge to see what scholarly conservatives are saying about Trump. Frankly, I was shocked when I found out (just last week, I found out) that George Will is against Trump. So, yes, I only posted that because the whole scholarly world against Trump is disconcerting.

I'm much more concerned about the National Review and the like not supporting Trump than the liberal Atlantic endorsing Clinton as their third endorsement ever. So, yes, from a conservative's perspective, it means a lot that Sowell supports Trump.

I don't like this conversation. I'm just gonna go look at the blue plus signs with numbers on the polling map.

lol pokerdox reads thedailywire. Shocking!

Atlantic is liberal because they've only supported non-bigots in the last 150 years?

Incredible. Yes it's real: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...31638380527616

The Atlantic is pretty liberal, or at least it's often intelligent and well written. Tomato-Tomahto.

As far as who they support? Well, Abraham Lincoln they supported. After that they've only made endorsements to oppose lunatics who seemed quite open to nuclear bombing.

Trump tells Reno crowd how to pronounce 'Nevada'

Wait until he goes to Neh-Vay-Dah (spelled Nevada) Missouri.

Like, they acknowledge that if Clinton were running against literally anyone else among the clown car that was the 2016 Republican presidential nominees, they would not have issued an endorsement. Yet in a history that includes ONLY stepping up to issue an endorsement for ABRAHAM ****ING LINCOLN and to stop Barry Goldwater against Lyndon B. Johnson over the issue of civil rights (remember, you claimed to care about racism, though it's becoming more and more obvious that those claims are total bull****), it means nothing to you that the "liberal" Atlantic, who I can't say enough times has only ever issued endorsements when the nation was in imminent danger of going down a dangerous course on civil rights, has decided that this is a monumental enough occasion to endorse Hillary Clinton in this race.

And you, who claims to "hate" racism, doesn't really care.

Sounds about right.

"If you don't say it correctly, and it didn't happen to me, but it happened to a friend of mine, and he was killed." - Trump

When I said the dialogue for the Alec Baldwin SNL skit wasn't quite right, but I understood because actual non-sense is hard to write, this is the kind of thing I was talking about.

you are entirely correct about his temperament, attention span, and so on. he's not some authoritarian mastermind, quite the opposite. that just means his rage fits will be completely unpredictable, except for the part that he has them. madman and a tyrant. how exciting.