NeverTrump forces lose at RNC
It was predictable, of course. Quite a while ago it became apparent—particularly when they couldn’t come up with a viable Trump alternative—that the NeverTrumpers had lost steam and would be defeated at the convention.
This is how it went down yesterday. Not good.
I am sympathetic to the NeverTrump forces, but they could not come together on someone credible and I have been trying to deal with the reality for quite some time now (probably since last March): that in this year of all years, Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee. And that he’s running against Hillary Clinton.
That’s the choice we face.
So I guess no Red Wedding or massacre happened?
That’s not a choice. I’m voting Libertarian.
Another really “smart” and really “full of his own integrity” bent on the destruction of the republic libertarian heard form.
Okay. Got it. Move along. We’ve got things to do.
Vander, you don’t even believe Trump is going to do anything except draw fire so you can continue survivalist stocking and or relocate.
You may got things to do, but it’s not politics.
I’ve relocated and am as stocked as I’m going to be. Please take the Libertarian Furry Feathered Shibboleth Boogyman Rattle and put it back in the Witch Doctor’s kit. We won’t be needing it.
Please take the Libertarian Furry Feathered Shibboleth Boogyman Rattle and put it back in the Witch Doctor’s kit. We won’t be needing it.
I’ll repeat myself, the things you may have to do, aren’t politics. Trump or no Trump.
Also, NeverTrump is a twitter hashtag. It’s not an organization. The GOP establishment is the organization, the one that got rid of Palin as well, via various interview setups and inside leaks and sabotages.
Just in case people lack memory going back more than a few years.
vanderleun Says: “Another really “smart” and really “full of his own integrity” bent on the destruction of the republic libertarian heard form.”
I won’t comment on what you’re full of. I have too much integrity.
Van, the man(?) who posted about making lists of people to be “taken care of” speaks about the republic. Not sure if he wants to be part of a death squad of just an assistant, an ammo bearer. He’s got thing to do and plan for.
“On my little list
They shall not be missed…”
Wolly Bully,
Saying “it’s not a choice”, doesn’t make it so. One or the other will be the President. And that’s what this choice is about. Contrary to what many think, this choice is not about personal principles. Nor is it about a choice between two people, however reprehensible they may be.
It is a choice about which of the forks in the road ahead our ship of state will take. And, as there’s no going back, there are only two paths forward. We’re going to take one path or the other and our only choice is which road we cast our vote for our society to take. All here wish we were on a different road and we all wish the two destinations we are faced with were different. But they are not, they are what collectively, we have chosen.
A vote for Trump is not necessarily a personal endorsement. The choice between the two comes down to a decision, as to which is most likely to be least harmful and whose Presidency we are most likely to be able to recover from…
That either will be harmful is indisputable. History demonstrates it to be indisputable that overall, Marxism is in the long term, more harmful than fascism. IMO, that is the choice we are faced with because that is where the majority, if inadvertantly, have led us.
My conclusion is that we may escape, though surely with scars, Trump’s authoritarianism but are far less likely to escape the Left’s ever deepening “fundamental transformation”.
“I am sympathetic to the NeverTrump forces, but they could not come together on someone credible” – Neo
That was always a long shot. It was always a game of “chicken”… who is going to move first?
It is the result of what we’ve all been complaining about in DC… politicians are all interested maintaining their base of influence, rather than representing the principles they say they are there to represent on our behalf.
It also reveals that there isn’t a monolithic, all powerful, establishment. Were that so, trump would not be the candidate. However, now that he is there, 80 – 90% of the party will/has fall/en in line, no matter what trump would represent.
It was sickening to see people who were very vocal on the side of conservative principles to so quickly endorse trump, and since provide support for him on issues they were on the other side of only 12 months or less ago.
Meanwhile, the rest of “us” wait around to see if an “alternative” will magically appear.
The “choice we face” is NOT binary. It only is so, if we believe it is so, and thus don’t move beyond… a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We are not politicians with our future tied to the party fortunes. We have a different interest, so why behave like them?
If trump is so far from our principles, is of questionable fitness/readiness for POTUS, and, yet, we STILL feel obliged to vote for him, then what does it really take to look beyond him?
The Libertarian Party has two **experienced** Governors running on their ticket. They are hand over fist more acceptable than the chaos vs corruption of a binary choice, with their more “moderate” track records in office.
Rather go with 50%+ fit on principles, far greater competence, and solid integrity vs the other two unacceptable choices.
Seriously wonder if this republic will remain for long, if we each are so timid, waiting for others to move first, rather than going with our convictions and lead by example.
Geoffrey Britain,
Sides of the same dis-civic coin. alt-Right activists displaced conservatives of the Right using the Trump phenomenon in order to set up their own Gramscian march to “fundamental transformation”. Given common traits and messaging, the hard Left and alt-Right may share the same foreign sources.
He who sets the parameters of the argument also tries to force the conclusion to his own ends.
Thanks BigMac for the counter to ” ships of state that follow forks in roads.”
With all due respect: Barring some kind of miracle, any realistic choice will indeed be strictly binary.
Remember Ross Perot.
Vote #NeverHillary
“My conclusion is that we may escape, though surely with scars, Trump’s authoritarianism but are far less likely to escape the Left’s ever deepening “fundamental transformation”.” – GB
This kind of thinking is how we lose our freedom.
Authoritarianism (or as you say, “facism”) NOW over the next four years, is better than a possible “marxism, in the long run”?
Never bought the argument that a country can go down the path of authoritarianism and somehow “more easily” (as implied) recover from that (vs continued leftward movement – for FOUR more years – the relevant period to discuss).
Authoritarianism, be it from left or right, is unacceptable. Period.
Not looking beyond the two “unacceptable choices”, is a choice.
There are other options, so voting for Trump is saying you find living with him as president is, indeed, “acceptable”.
Big Maq,
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
The proximate self-induced impotence you’re observing now is simply carried forward from the same abnegating mentality of conservatives who reacted to the full-spectrum advance of the Left-activist Gramscian march by insisting on passing the buck on activism to the GOP, despite that structurally, the GOP depended on the Right for the activism needed to compete for real in the same way the Democrats depended on the Left for activism, and thus were co-opted by the Left.
The alt-Right is simply applying the same formula as the Left in order to co-opt the similarly structured GOP. Conservatives like Neo have long well diagnosed the ways and means of the Left, yet despite the ample forewarning, their total commitment to their personal aversions to activism yet abandoned the GOP to the Trump-front alt-Right insurgency.
A viable 3rd option – and for that matter, arming the GOP against the Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right – didn’t and couldn’t start with a magical messiah candidate to whom conservatives could pass the buck.
A viable 3rd option needed to begin with conservatives collectively teaming up as a permanent full-spectrum social activist movement that would aggressively, relentlessly take the fight to all sides, Trump-front alt-Right and Democrat-front Left, in the arena. A good-enough candidate would only be viable in the context of a sufficient social activist movement.
But it’s obviously apparent that conservatives value their personal aversion to activism above all professed principles and their country. As acrobatically as any Democrat rationalizes support for Obama or Hillary Clinton, conservatives, whether it’s passing the buck to the GOP or submissively conceding their space in the political landscape to the alt-Right, work their hardest when rationalizing their rejection of the activism that’s necessary for them to compete for real in the only social cultural/political game there is.
Structurally, the GOP is what it is, and alt-Right activists simply seized the opportunity and applied the Left’s proven playbook to exploit the vacuum of activism left by buck-passing conservatives. The Trump phenomenon has been a fitness test for conservatives, not the GOP as such. So far, the result of the fitness test is that Left and alt-Right activists have little to worry about, competitively speaking, from conservatives, who’ve taken themselves out of the game even at the moment it was most obvious and urgent they needed to be in it.
Big Maq:
“Authoritarianism, be it from left or right, is unacceptable. Period.”
The “binary choice” looks like it goes left or (alt) right, but they both loop around to the same place.
My vote for Trump is a vote for the Constitution. I still hold that the other 2 branches of government will rediscover their reason for creation and finally have the will to respond to any Executive baloney if Trump were elected. I am not a betting person, but I would risk all I own that this would never happen under a Hillary presidency. Ronald Reagan said (paraphrasing) that he was amazed at how little a President could accomplish (stymied as he was by the other branches). Trump was never my choice but to me there is NO COMPARISON between a Hillary or Trump presidency. GB has continually made the case here and Dennis Prager on the radio. My 2 sons, staunch conservatives and among the young people we are passing the baton to, were Cruz supporters but do not share the fears that the NeverTrump crowd has. I take courage from their clarity and what they perceive as more hopeful.
“The “binary choice” looks like it goes left or (alt) right, but they both loop around to the same place.” – Eric
Agree.
The Nolan Chart gives a much better picture of the political spectrum than does the traditional left vs right framework. Yet, at two dimensions, it is still inadequate, as the progressive and conservative extremes (edges of chart) inevitably have to engage in some heavy government controls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Nolan_chart.jpg
.
“You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man’s age-old dream — the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” – Ronald Reagan – 1964 GOP Convention
“GB has continually made the case here” – Sharon
Sorry, but GB has several times stated that trump is an authoritarian as if that is a good thing.
If true, then you are correct, there is no comparison. Four more years towards looking like Canada vs authoritarianism. Easy choice.
.
“the other 2 branches of government will rediscover their reason for creation”
The other two branches will fold, just like they have for Obama, just like the so-called “establishment” has for trump, just as how much of the conservative “thought leaders” have abandoned their lifetime of writing/broadcasting, and suddenly changed their tune to match trump.
It is MUCH harder to hold your own guy accountable than it is to hold someone from the opposite party accountable. Of course, this assumes a trump POTUS would be with a GOP majority in House and Senate. Maybe the GOP will lose both, allowing for a more effective “opposition” in those two branches.
In any case, it is a poor bet, based on what we are seeing play out before our eyes.
Big Maq–We’ll agree to disagree. When I say GB has made the case, I’m talking about hope for the Republic still existing in a Trump presidency. The Founders established 3 branches for a reason. If you already think Trump as an authoritarian represents disaster, what are we really talking about saving? More of the 3 branch authoritarianism that is this present rogue government?
No surprise the nevertrump failed. The rnc hated and feared Cruz or Cotton as the nominee. I can live with President Pence should djt choose to resign rather than to having to surrender the day to day work of running the donald ’empire’ and play president.
“GB has several times stated that trump is an authoritarian as if that is a good thing.” Big Maq
Most definitely NOT a ‘good thing’, simply much to be preferred over a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Firstly, because of the forces in support of her and to whom she must answer and secondly, because IMO, the evidence indicates that we are far closer to a tipping point from which recovery would only be possible by winning a brutal civil war, than you evidently are willing to credit.
I hope you are right and I the one in error. But I think not.
I would also ask for a more careful reading of my comments. I did not imply that recovering from authoritarianism will be easy. I stated it might be possible to recover from an authoritarian Presidency. And I stated that I see no path out of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
I see no path because of a massive network of Leftist organizations, future SCOTUS appointments. continued progress by the Left through our institutions (such as ‘diversity’ litmus tests in schools), demographics, amnesty and a path to citizenship for millions and literally dozens of other fronts (racial animus, 1st and 2nd degradation’s) upon which the Left is attacking American societal cohesion.
Authoritarianism is indeed unacceptable but, like it or not, it is what we may have OR a soft Marxism that calls itself progressivism. And since no form of socialism can survive without evolving into Marxism, that is the end state of that path.
You talk as if a third, presumably constitutional path is possible. Would that it were so but demographics, the establishment on both sides and half of America argue otherwise.
parker,
There is a real possibility that Trump will at some point be assassinated.
It will be interesting to see who Clinton selects for the VP. Of the two people, Clinton and Trump, I sense that Clinton is in poorer health and/or mental condition. So, do you want her VP to be the replacement president?
Also, since the media is just an arm of the DNC, they will be hounding Trump every day. If Clinton gets the position, they will ignore any illegal acts, just like they did for Obama.
I voted for Cruz and would have preferred a more conservative candidate, but I’ll vote the Republican option as well as for conservative representatives for my state.
@Sharon – I’m not arguing trump IS an authoritarian, but you do cite GB as “making the case”. He says as much.
A few main points about trump… 1) he has shown during this campaign that he is unfit for office on several dimensions – temperament, knowledge, interest, poor communication skills, poor organizational skills/planning, penchant for demonizing at a personal and a group level, lack of honesty/integrity; 2) he has said so many contradictory things that he is unlikely to be the anti-hillary all are expecting, and more likely to look very much like her vs a Republican; 3) given the above, he will create mass uncertainty, and IF he follows through on his trade and nato threats (to name two things), we are in for a very rough ride economically and diplomatically, as opposed to “making america great again” that his supporters expect.; 4) he may not become an authoritarian, but, unless the House and Senate acquiesce on most of his requests, he gives every indication he will expand the bounds of excutive action well past Obama’s for much the same reasons (on second thought, maybe he will be, if you think Obama is now an authoritarian), kicking the door wide open for the next POTUS to abuse power – will it be a GOP then? if not, do we think this a good thing?
A bet on trump is a bet that the GOP surrounding him can manage him within a boundary of policies, and that the structures of our government will hold him back. Fat chance, given what we’ve seen with Obama, and with what we see today in the GOP. Even Pence on the ticket won’t moderate him much, I fear.
If he is elected, there will be profound disappointment, as his supporters’ expectations are nowhere near realistic.
But, if GB is making the case for you, you’d not think much of the above is true.
.
“what are we really talking about saving?”
That is precisely the question I have for any trump supporter. The GOP used to represent a set of principles and policy ideas, though imperfectly so, to be sure. With trump at the head, that is no longer true.
trump has contradicted himself on so many issues, so many times, it is hard to know exactly what he will do – making one wonder how anyone thinks he will “save” anything?
That said, his history suggests he is very much left in terms of where he’d go on any issue, including SCOTUS appointments (notwithstanding his list for Scalia – there will likely be other Justices to replace that he has no commitment on, and what will he do if the Dems have a Senate majority and block his Scalia replacement?). If we’ve been life long supporters of / voters for the GOP, how does supporting trump square with what we think should be “saved”?
Do principles even matter? Or, were we just kidding when we yelled “RINO!!!” at anyone who veered slightly from “conservative orthodoxy”?
So just what do we think we are getting with trump that is anywhere close to what we’ve been asking from the GOP all this time?
If the answer is “not Hillary”, just what is the cutoff on acceptability? Would a facist, as GB argues, still be preferable?
Interesting back and forth. With a couple of exceptions I do not think anyone is off-base.
There is a discussion at home, where I take the position that if I with-hold my vote from Trump, it is not a vote for Hillary. My position being that no candidate is entitled to my vote, it must be earned.
So, I do not subscribe to the binary principle, as there is an alternative.
However, I firmly expect to vote for Trump with a decidedly uneasy mind. I will, in essence, cave because if I with hold my vote and HRC wins I will have trouble living with myself. Logic will tell me that my vote matters naught in California, but I am not always governed by logic.
One more point to get off of my chest. My mind will be uneasy, and my stomach churned when I vote. An example of why that will be the case was demonstrated during Trump’s pre-convention appearance O’Reilly, when he said multiple times of Kasich’s decision to stay away from the convention, “I beat him badly”. If I had his ear I would say; “listen, you clever man, who acts so stupidly, you cannot win without Ohio. Your response should have been a very simple, ‘we have had our differences, and I will do anything I can to get past them because the Governor of Ohio has an important voice, and I will need his help in the upcoming election’.” Apparently he is either too arrogant to take the high road; or is simply unable to identify it–never having been there. I still have some worries about this personality with Presidential power. But, then there is Hillary.
Big Maq,
FYI, I agree with ALL of your points about Trump as real possibilities. And yes, a fascist is much better than a Marxist. I’ll grit my teeth and take a Juan Peron over a Hugo Chavez any day.
Big Maq–The difference between us is my faith in the founding structure of our government. This administration has been riding roughshod over the Constitution from the very beginning with either no push-back or the SC crowning the unconstitutional action. I believe that would not be the case with a rogue Trump. You fear Trump, I fear Hillary. That probably best sums up the circumstances.
“Most definitely NOT a ‘good thing’, simply much to be preferred over a Hillary Clinton Presidency.” – GB
Fair enough. But, that IS the point. A “much preferred”, very possible (facist) authoritarianism NOW (in past you thought it was assured) w trump, over some certain (if all your prerequisites hold true – possibly/probably not) future (marxist) authoritarianism (but who knows when?) is a false choice.
Right, there MIGHT be possible recovery from a facist authoritarianism, but wouldn’t the odds be about the same for recovery from a marxist one? How does one even estimate one as impossible to recover from, but the other possible?
Wouldn’t the odds be better that we actively work to avoid (at some unknown future time, but greater than four years away) marxist authoritarianism, than taking an option that risks facist authoritarianism within the next four years?
Then you state we are rather close to a civil war. Huh? Where did that come from?
One question, did you get rich on the housing collapse around 2007-2008? Being facetious here, but seriously…. With the complex world we live in, it is impossible to be so certain that civil war is just over the horizon, short of extraordinary powers of prediction.
Your argument is in the vein of the burn it all down one. It rests on the assumption that people cannot be convinced that our principles are worthy of support, and that groups of people all behave the same way, now and forever more. Therefore, it is worth the risk of facist authoritarianism.
We discussed this before – it is a non sequitur as our behavior has great influence on that outcome. If we don’t bother to make the case, because we don’t think anyone is receptive, well then, nobody will be convinced – doom and gloom, all wrapped in a nice self-fulfilling bow.
Likewise for all your prerequisites on the march towards marxist authoritarianism. It assumes a static world with static responses, and overall fateful helplessness on our part.
We are better off sticking to our principles and looking elsewhere beyond the limited two choices for POTUS than compromising on them in the hopes of some kind of “Do Over”.
“FYI, I agree with ALL of your points about Trump as real possibilities. And yes, a fascist is much better than a Marxist. I’ll grit my teeth and take a Juan Peron over a Hugo Chavez any day.” – GB
Thanks. I suspect that you and I agree on much more than is apparent in these comments.
I’m not certain that trump would devolve into authoritarianism any more than clinton. However, I do see him exercising executive authority well beyond where Obama left, as he does not seem to be one to take NO for an answer, even if it a legal one.
That alone is troubling, but it is what comes after that will be more troubling, as if trump overcomes his negatives for November, four years later he will probably be off the charts negative – worse than GWB in 2008.
So, with a Dem in office in 2021, will his precedence in executive authority have serve us well, or will it serve that future Dem POTUS well?
Where are we on the march to marxist authoritarianism then?
The only hope is if trump were to implement a series of very conservative policies, some of which further binds or rolls back presidential powers, and re-asserts Congress’ role in the balance of power. He gives every indication that he is far from that ideal.
I don’t have Sharon’s belief that the structure of government would hold back trump any more than it did Obama, let alone be self correcting.
That has to come from us, the voters, in selecting the right kinds of people who look to implement the right kinds of principles.
So far, the binary choice does not offer that up.
I have my own thoughts on djt as CINC which I’ve stated several times and see no need to repeat them. No one knows what may happen between now and 11/8 or on that date. The two nominees have terrible negatives and the msm will play its usual roll, highlight those of the R and ignore those of the D. This will be a very unusual campaign full of surprises and unknown unknowns. Strange days ahead.
Best wishes to all. We are visiting grandchildren in Oregon tomorrow and look forward to escaping the heat and humidity for a few days and enjoying the kids and the coast. It will be a short visit because the green beans, tomatoes, peppers and eggplants are about to enter peak production. Those are important events in flyover country.
“You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man’s age-old dream – the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” — Ronald Reagan — 1964 GOP Convention
* *
Even more to the point is the choice between not-good and evil.
Trump is not a particularly good man, in many ways (in some ways he seems to be doing fine), but Hillary Clinton is unreservedly EVIL.
Hillary is OWNED.
At least RENTED.
This nation survived Andrew Jackson.
It can easily survive Donald Trump.
The WORLD can not survive Hillary.
Egypt
Ukraine
Iraq
Syria
Libya
And that’s just the warm up.
Huma Abedin — Huma Abedin — Huma Abedin — Huma Abedin
The Saudis are bragging that they’re in for 20% of Hillary’s war chest.
They’ve got such monies.
They’re THAT desperate.
Huma Abedin gives them total confidence.
The whore of Washington will take funds from ANYBODY.
That’s established from IRS filings… and more.
Don’t conflate a loud mouth with an asp.
&&
The REAL Donald Trump will prove out to be a Classic NY Liberal — FDR style.
He’s too old to change his stripes.
The REAL Hillary will prove out to be Whitewater on estrogen.
She’s too old to change her stripes.
She profiles as a DILLY.
Donald profiles as an EMPEROR.
He’s also a classic delegator.
She’s a Control Freak…
More like Jimmah Carter of tennis court fame.
“Even more to the point is the choice between not-good and evil… Trump is not a particularly good man, in many ways (in some ways he seems to be doing fine), but Hillary Clinton is unreservedly EVIL.” – Aesop
Depends on how you define “evil”.
Whether it is habit or conditioning, our natural reaction is “not Hillary”. This time is different. trump is different.
Those who have their personal interests tied to perpetuating the party and winning will try to convince us how bad Hillary is, and gloss over / ignore / excuse / explain trump.
Our interests are far different than any party apparatchik, lobbyist, or pundit. We don’t have to hold to the party line, as the party no longer stands for our principles.
If we want to focus on “evil” as a differentiator… Quotes from Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter to “The Art of the Deal”…
“Trump stands for many of the things I abhor: his willingness to run over people, the gaudy, tacky, gigantic obsessions, the absolute lack of interest in anything beyond power and money”
“Trump’s need for attention is “completely compulsive””
““Lying is second nature to him… More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true.””
“(trump’s behavior in his business dealings around the Grand Central Hyatt are)…“if not reprehensible, at least morally questionable.””
““He’d like people when they were helpful, and turn on them when they weren’t. It wasn’t personal. He’s a transactional man–it was all about what you could do for him.””
If he were to ghostwrite the book today, he’d call it “”The Sociopath””
“(If trump is elected President)… the millions of people who voted for him and believe that he represents their interests will learn what anyone who deals closely with him already knows–that he couldn’t care less about them“
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Despite that this is an obvious hit piece that comes from “The New Yorker”, and from a liberal, the gist of Schwartz’s comments corroborates much of what we’ve seen both over the course of this campaign and what can be found via google.
In total, all of this adds up to: trump is about as “evil” as Clinton is. BOTH are of poor moral character in disqualifying amounts (if we could measure it).
We can only guess from trump’s past stances (as he’s been mutable over his campaign) that he’d be about as left as any Dem for the most part, so neither gets us where we need to be.
And, both carry with them a host of consequences and implications for us.
One of the most relevant differences, when faced with these two “evils”, is who is prone to be impulsive and unpredictable vs who is more surefooted and consistent?
If you believe that there is no hope anyway, you’d rather take a high risk gamble on one “evil”, just to keep another “evil” out.
If so, I’ve got to ask, just what is the cut off on acceptability of a GOP candidate, that we’d actually vote for him?
I’d rather we reject both and rally around another alternative, use the opportunity we have to regroup, make our conservative case to a wider audience outside of our bubble, and win the next POTUS election.
Break from the herd of the two party paradigm. Be a mover rather than a wait-er, delaying indefinitely to see what everyone else is going to do. Waiting is a self-fulfilling thought process that limits our choices.
http://theresurgent.com/sadness-for-friends-who-cannot-be-sad/
Wow, this captures the idea well.
Blue vs Green – loyalty to the team vs the ideas / principles.
Oh there’ll be a List all right, for guerilla and counter insurgency (COIN) operations. I’m more on the Survivalist side than on the neutral or pro estsablished powers side.
Which is why I’m not belittling Vander, merely pointing out that some people are supporting Trump for reasons other than what Trump will “fix”. Sometimes “fixing” a problem isn’t useful to people who already know about who is going to damn America.
Of course, other people may consider LIsts and guerilla insurgencies and survivalist preparation in America to be foolish or insane. Just take a look at BLM (both of them), Hussein, and the Federal forces, for a gut check on what is really insane.
Given common traits and messaging, the hard Left and alt-Right may share the same foreign sources.
The simpler and easier explanation is that the internet generation can learn faster, not having grown up in established universities and cultures. After a few decades of getting smashed in the head by the Left, they will learn to use the LEft’s methods against them. The Republicans have been getting beat by the Leftist alliance for awhile now, why haven’t they learned? They have billions in spare cash just waiting to be used over the years. But they don’t learn. Because learning requires a cultural component.
If he is elected, there will be profound disappointment, as his supporters’ expectations are nowhere near realistic.
I don’t expect anything from HRC (who Democrats have supported for as long as there has been an internet) or Trump, except a nuke killing Americans.
What I do expect is that their supporters be held accountable. Holding a totalitarian tyrant accountable is nigh impossible, but their proponents are expected to ensure their leaders do what they said their leaders would do. And if that promise fails to come through, then the access is available for the people at the bottom. The same ones that make the system work. Insurgency vs COIN.
Perot was a good trick by the Clintons to spike the election. Same thing they tried with Trump as new Perot for the RNC primaries.
Btw, the entire Leftist alliance is evil, which includes any family or associates people here have who are life long Democrats or something akin to a loyal Leftist.
It isn’t merely HRC you should call evil, but everybody else in this country who is evil, if you have the guts to do it, call them evil as well for that is what they are. Also that means getting rid of HRC doesn’t do any of us much good, because evil is still here. You couldn’t kill evil in Hillary, and you can’t kill evil in your family or friends. Same deal.