Daily Archives: April 7, 2016
The conventional media, who think and reason in a conventional way, tell us that the conventional pollsters (who think and reason in the same way) have decided Trump will lose badly against Hillary if the former (which is still the most probable outcome) gets the nomination in Cleveland.
I beg to differ.
Let us look at the two camps.
On the Republican side, Trump has consistently defied expectations. He has kicked out of the race all the establishment candidates, those whom the polls and the pundits (who think and reason in a conventional way) said they had the fight among them: Bush, Rubio, Christie. These pundits saw Cruz as a very long shot, and Trump as a deluded fantasy. The Huffington Post had Trump in the entertainment column until December. This is how horribly wrong they were.
On the Democratic side, it appeared untoward to some that Hillary should run basically unopposed. One or two fringe candidates were found to keep alive the semblance of a “contest”. No one gave a chance to a 74 years old socialist basically fulfilling a sort of liberal civic duty. This socialist has now won six of the seven last races, regularly defeats Clinton in fundraising, obtains his fund from the little man instead of from rich donors, and keeps being voted against an extremely strong media message concerning the inevitability of Hillary's victory.
Trump has defeated very credible candidates, candidates whom the press already saw as the clear favourites. Clinton struggles against the very definition of a hopeless candidate, and a very convenient one at that (if you want a pretend adversary, it is best to have an old leftist dreamer to let you appear statesmanlike and moderate).
It is clear that Clinton is an extremely weak candidate, and that Trump has already demonstrated the ability to gather a much bigger popular support than her.
Granted: if on the other side a charismatic opponent were confronting him, the divisive Trump would have a hard time persuading the unregistered, the undecided, the middle of the way voters . But the woman is hated. She is so hated! She is hated even by women!
Go research the delegates numbers without those sent there by the party apparatus (the “democratic” party is such, that it cannot allow a democratic process to select the candidate without massive interference), and realise how shockingly bad Hillary has fared against the weakest of all possible candidates. Bloomberg must be eating his liver. Even Biden must think whether he wouldn't do better. The woman is an unmitigated disaster.
No, I can't see Trump losing against Hillary. Not unless he abandons every prudence and, in an orgy of complacency, starts spouting contradictory nonsense like he has done in the last week or two (pretty sure it will stop now, though; Wisconsin must have been a pretty loud wake up call…). As for Cruz, if he is the Republican candidate Hillary can start packing now, because it does not make sense to undergo the inconvenience just to be a loser – again.
The same media who were utterly unable to see the rise of both Trump and Cruz are now telling you Hillary, who can't even win against a bleeding socialist maniac, has the victory in the pocket if she runs against Trump. But again the mainstream media keep pumping up the chances of serial loser Kasich, so this is par for the course.
Trump has every chance to win in a landslide against Clinton, and his worst enemy would be… Donald Trump. Cruz would inflict her a defeat of Mondale-proportions.
There is truly no reason to be afraid of Hillary. The only thing we must be afraid is a civil war between Republicans.
1. Every ambiguous papal document and statement must be read in the sense that is in conformity to Truth.
2. What is not in conformity to Truth is, to various degrees, heterodox or openly heretical; it must not be respected, and it must be openly and vocally fought against.
3. No Pope owns the truth. No Pope can change established doctrine. If he tries to do so, this is an exercise in heresy; but the doctrine itself has not changed.
4. The heretical priest or bishop starting or condoning a heretical praxis is a heretic; no obedience is due to him in anything concerned the heretical praxis. The heretical bishop or priest must be openly and vocally fought against.
5. The heretical priest or bishop is not such because he reads an ambiguous document. A clergyman has to know the truth. Such a man is heretical simply because he wants to. He does not even need the excuse of ambiguous documents. No heretic ever did. 300 German priests already sacrilegiously give communion to adulterers. A bad document may encourage a heretic to proclaim heresy; but again, he does so because he has subscribed to the heresy already.
6. The same goes for the laymen, in what pertains to evident truths. No adulterer can, no matter what any papal document says, claim that Truth, or doctrine, has now changed. He who says so denies evidence and lies to himself. Correct him brutally, lest he gets the habit of spreading his lies around in impunity.
7. Every priest, bishop or pope is responsible for the flock entrusted to him. Inaction in front of abuse and heretical praxis does not excuse him; nor does it excuse the sheep under his care.