TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[justdrew]

It's already underway, just google, "Fox’s Shep Smith shreds strategist: Republican Party lies gave rise to Donald Trump" - or - "I’ve never voted for a Democrat": Ben Stein flips support to Hillary and Bernie because of Trump

Hillary will be our candidate of national unity

It's brunch in america

[Joao]

But how about Communists for Trump.

Let's just get to the overt fascism already. I'm so tired of all the creeping.

I wonder if this is how the Reagan Democrats felt.

[IanEye]

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.

His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.

Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.

Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.

His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.

He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.

His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

David Adesnik
Michael Auslin
Robert D. Blackwill
Daniel A. Blumenthal
Max Boot
Michael Chertoff
Patrick Chovanec
Eliot A. Cohen
Carrie Cordero
Michael Coulter
Patrick M. Cronin
Seth Cropsey
Tom Donnelly
Daniel Drezner
Colin Dueck
Eric Edelman
Richard A. Falkenrath
Peter D. Feaver
Aaron Friedberg
Jeffrey Gedmin
Christopher J. Griffin
Mary R. Habeck
Rebeccah Heinrichs
William C. Inboden
Jamil N. Jaffer
Robert G. Joseph
Kate Kidder
Robert Kagan
David Kramer
Matthew Kroenig
Frank Lavin
Philip I. Levy
Mary Beth Long
Matthew McCabe
Bryan McGrath
Paul D. Miller
Charles Morrison
Lester Munson
Andrew S. Natsios
Michael Noonan
John  Noonan
Roger F. Noriega
Robert T. Osterhaler
Everett Pyatt
Martha T. Rainville
Stephen Rodriguez
Daniel F. Runde
Richard L. Russell
Kori Schake
Randy Scheunemann
Gary J. Schmitt
Kalev I. Sepp
David R. Shedd
Kristen Silverberg
Michael Singh
Ray Takeyh
William H. Tobey
Frances F. Townsend
Jan Van Tol
Julie Wood
Dov S. Zakheim
Roger Zakheim
Philip Zelikow
Robert B. Zoellick

The statement above was coordinated by Dr. Eliot A. Cohen, former Counselor of the Department of State (2007–8) and Bryan McGrath, Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group, a defense consultancy. They encourage other members of the Republican foreign policy and national security communities wishing to sign the declaration to contact them.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/


..

[Luther Blissett]

I suspect the script is that the resounding electoral defeat of trump will signal a significant shift in US political demography, finally cleaving off the dead-enders and letting an Actually Better America emerge as the clear winning consensus. It'll be the end of the social acceptability of a major part of the republican conventional wisdom. A wholesale close-out fire sale on their standard red-meat issues. Maybe then we can get back to dealing with reality instead of republican fantasy projection we've lived in for a generation or more. It will seem to most like a revolution of sorts. A potentially bloodless social revolution where everyone drops the bullshit... and most... come to their senses at last.

I hadn't even considered yet until your post what Trump's most rabid base will do if he loses. I don't know why it hadn't crossed my mind.

Option one is to do nothing and reabsorb back into the Republican and Independent blocs as if nothing had ever happened.
Option two is to remain unified as a dystopian expression of a pretty old demographic, but to do nothing. What most electoral blocs do when their "team" loses. Gore voters capitulated pretty merrily that fall and voiced most of their concern towards only Nader voters, or if they were a little more woke, the Court. It was only a short-lived bout of whining.
Option three is to organize with their sights on 2020. My hunch is that this is a little too feeble and patient though. This road would represent something like the formation of a new third party based on national identity, strength, or isolationism.
Option four is to organize not with their sights on electoral politics but on social upheaval, more organized paramilitaries with larger scale and further reach; absorption of the ultraright into a nation-wide coalition, focusing on cities, the southwest, and Muslim populations. Somewhat like a KKK-tinged occupation.
Option five is to spasm immediately. The least historically precedented but possible. I'm not sure how this could play out legally and formally but it's not hard to imagine how it would happen socially.

What are some others? Are options one-three the more likely?

[IanEye]

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. - Ronald Reagan 1964

In 1964, days before the presidential election, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America that it was a 'Time for Choosing.' He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path.

I'm no Ronald Reagan, and this is a different moment, but I believe with my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country. - Mitt Romney 2016

.

[General Patton]

I hadn't even considered yet until your post what Trump's most rabid base will do if he loses. I don't know why it hadn't crossed my mind.

Option one is to do nothing and reabsorb back into the Republican and Independent blocs as if nothing had ever happened.

lol no

Not even the GOP pundits who are the local arm of the Likud think everything will go back to being the same.

Option two is to remain unified as a dystopian expression of a pretty old demographic, but to do nothing. What most electoral blocs do when their "team" loses. Gore voters capitulated pretty merrily that fall and voiced most of their concern towards only Nader voters, or if they were a little more woke, the Court. It was only a short-lived bout of whining.

All Trump voters are old except for the ones who aren't.

http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics ... story.html
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/t ... itarianism

There's more than enough young people to cause problems. Hell he could pipeline poor whites from the socialist patches in Oklahoma, rural Appalachia ect for soldiers who would kill for him on command.

Option three is to organize with their sights on 2020. My hunch is that this is a little too feeble and patient though. This road would represent something like the formation of a new third party based on national identity, strength, or isolationism.

The newly elected chair of the Republican Party in the county that includes the Texas Capitol spent most of election night tweeting about former Gov. Rick Perry’s sexual orientation and former President Bill Clinton’s penis, and insisting that members of the Bush family should be in jail.
....
“We will explore every single option that exists, whether it be persuading him to resign, trying to force him to resign, constraining his power, removing his ability to spend money or resisting any attempt for him to access data or our social media account,” Mackowiak told the Tribune. “I’m treating this as a coup and as a hostile takeover.”

“Tell them they can go fuck themselves,” Morrow told the Tribune.
http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/ ... s-capitol/

Option four is to organize not with their sights on electoral politics but on social upheaval, more organized paramilitaries with larger scale and further reach; absorption of the ultraright into a nation-wide coalition, focusing on cities, the southwest, and Muslim populations. Somewhat like a KKK-tinged occupation.

You're forgetting about the illegals. The whole reason Sessions has backed him is he has pledged to kick out both the illegals and the anchor babies, Operation Wetback 2.0. Most likely with the cooperation of legal Mexican immigrants on his side.

People will still be fired up if Don doesn't deliver hard and fast and may take matters into their own hands. Even if he's lying and he's actually a moderate we're past the point of no-return here.

Option five is to spasm immediately. The least historically precedented but possible. I'm not sure how this could play out legally and formally but it's not hard to imagine how it would happen socially.

What are some others? Are options one-three the more likely?

Option 6: Trump takes a bullet and becomes a martyr for ultra-nationalism.

Option 7: Trump releases blackmail material that puts even more pressure on Clinton, Clinton responds, mutually assured destruction occurs. Which candidate is covered in more teflon?

[Luther Blissett]

I hadn't even considered yet until your post what Trump's most rabid base will do if he loses. I don't know why it hadn't crossed my mind.

Option one is to do nothing and reabsorb back into the Republican and Independent blocs as if nothing had ever happened.

lol no

Not even the GOP pundits who are the local arm of the Likud think everything will go back to being the same.

Option two is to remain unified as a dystopian expression of a pretty old demographic, but to do nothing. What most electoral blocs do when their "team" loses. Gore voters capitulated pretty merrily that fall and voiced most of their concern towards only Nader voters, or if they were a little more woke, the Court. It was only a short-lived bout of whining.

All Trump voters are old except for the ones who aren't.

http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics ... story.html
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/t ... itarianism

There's more than enough young people to cause problems. Hell he could pipeline poor whites from the socialist patches in Oklahoma, rural Appalachia ect for soldiers who would kill for him on command.

Option three is to organize with their sights on 2020. My hunch is that this is a little too feeble and patient though. This road would represent something like the formation of a new third party based on national identity, strength, or isolationism.

The newly elected chair of the Republican Party in the county that includes the Texas Capitol spent most of election night tweeting about former Gov. Rick Perry’s sexual orientation and former President Bill Clinton’s penis, and insisting that members of the Bush family should be in jail.
....
“We will explore every single option that exists, whether it be persuading him to resign, trying to force him to resign, constraining his power, removing his ability to spend money or resisting any attempt for him to access data or our social media account,” Mackowiak told the Tribune. “I’m treating this as a coup and as a hostile takeover.”

“Tell them they can go fuck themselves,” Morrow told the Tribune.
http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/ ... s-capitol/

Option four is to organize not with their sights on electoral politics but on social upheaval, more organized paramilitaries with larger scale and further reach; absorption of the ultraright into a nation-wide coalition, focusing on cities, the southwest, and Muslim populations. Somewhat like a KKK-tinged occupation.

You're forgetting about the illegals. The whole reason Sessions has backed him is he has pledged to kick out both the illegals and the anchor babies, Operation Wetback 2.0. Most likely with the cooperation of legal Mexican immigrants on his side.

People will still be fired up if Don doesn't deliver hard and fast and may take matters into their own hands. Even if he's lying and he's actually a moderate we're past the point of no-return here.

Option five is to spasm immediately. The least historically precedented but possible. I'm not sure how this could play out legally and formally but it's not hard to imagine how it would happen socially.

What are some others? Are options one-three the more likely?

Option 6: Trump takes a bullet and becomes a martyr for ultra-nationalism.

Option 7: Trump releases blackmail material that puts even more pressure on Clinton, Clinton responds, mutually assured destruction occurs. Which candidate is covered in more teflon?

Oh trust, I offered the first few options only because I didn't want to go full paranoid. My option 4 presumed the large presence in the southwest was specifically to drive a paramilitary response to "illegal immigrants". I still think option 5 is the most likely.

What are the social aspects of option 7? I'd like to explore that further.

[General Patton]

Option 7: Trump releases blackmail material that puts even more pressure on Clinton, Clinton responds, mutually assured destruction occurs. Which candidate is covered in more teflon?

Oh trust, I offered the first few options only because I didn't want to go full paranoid. My option 4 presumed the large presence in the southwest was specifically to drive a paramilitary response to "illegal immigrants". I still think option 5 is the most likely.

What are the social aspects of option 7? I'd like to explore that further.

Big H ran in the same circles as Donny T for years. NYC is a big city but at the top it's really small, everyone knows each other. The Don has burned all his bridges so there's no fear of social alienation if he drops blackmail material on them. My guess - he could go after Chelsea to make it really volatile. He probably won't do that until after Big H goes after Donny T's kids first though.

https://twitter.com/Halsrethink/status/704385161559830528
Harald Malmgren wrote:
Friends in NY who are "establishment" figures describe him to me as "uncivilized",unwelcome in their circles

[seemslikeadream]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhKS7gYq9E


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYj1rx5Fz0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lojb-a5VZK0

[Luther Blissett]

Big H ran in the same circles as Donny T for years. NYC is a big city but at the top it's really small, everyone knows each other. The Don has burned all his bridges so there's no fear of social alienation if he drops blackmail material on them. My guess - he could go after Chelsea to make it really volatile. He probably won't do that until after Big H goes after Donny T's kids first though.

I'm curious as to how his supporters will react, what will happen "on the ground" so to speak. Which was the impetus for my original set of scenarios.

[82_28]

The media and entertainers and such are throwing everything at him now. I don't know what to make of any of this. I don't think anybody does.

[Wombaticus Rex]

The media and entertainers and such are throwing everything at him now. I don't know what to make of any of this. I don't think anybody does.

Sure you do. The entire edifice of "media" is a platform that is owned. A lot of Americans know this, and they know they've been lied to for decades, and they know their leaders have sold them out, and the know they're worse off than their parents were because of it.

And they'd rather see Trump burn down Washington DC and network media than deal with another four years...of...anything.

It's not about policy, it's about personality.

Agree with General Patton that this election cycle is very different and none of these fires will be put out in November.

[82_28]

Alright, well subtract the racism and I would vote for his ass. Until then that is what makes him so dangerous. I don't give a fuck about "illegals" and don't give a fuck about Muslims. But no group of people in this country should be singled out wholesale.

edit: amended to say I don't "give a fuck" about Mexicans and Muslims being around me.

[Luther Blissett]

If you subtract the racism, he probably wouldn't be as rich.

[IanEye]

*


2012

*


2016

*