No, I don’t believe that Republicans would be willing to impeach/convict Donald Trump
I often see people claiming that one advantage of Trump is that Congress would have no hesitation to impeach him if he oversteps. (As so often happens, they’re probably using “impeach” to mean “impeach and convict,” but let’s not be too pedantic about it.) But just to be a little pedantic, impeaching without convicting is an exercise in futility, and can have the effect of drawing sympathy for a president rather than decreasing his or her power.
But the claim that Congress would be an effective check on Trump and not Hillary is advanced so often that I though it worthy of a post. It’s certainly true that Hillary would no more be impeached/convicted than Obama has been; with that, I certainly agree. But I think Trump’s chances of impeachment/conviction if he becomes president and oversteps is the same: that is, just about zero. In fact, I don’t see that Republicans or the press would hold Trump’s feet to the fire in any effective manner.
The press will try it to the extent that they do with any and all Republicans, but I don’t see them as being able to do any more than that. Trump is particularly free from the influence of what the press says about him; his support does not depend on it and he has made his way by mocking and reviling the press. Many press members also rather like Trump, because he is good for their business and brings readers. So they tolerate him and in some cases even promote him.
As for Republicans, they have not successfully held Trump’s feet to the fire so far on anything—even in ways they might have, such as uniting to support one main opponent of his, or changing the rules at the convention. And the more power he gains and wields as president, and the more he threatens to damage them if they don’t toe the line, the less likely they are to do that. I’m always surprised at how many people think that the GOP would be willing and able to stand up to a President Trump who has become drunk with his own power and not at all averse to flaunting it and using it to destroy his enemies. In many cases, the same people saying that the GOP would stand up to him are the people who are angry at the GOP because it has been so wimpy and/or so unprincipled in general over the years.
Impeaching Trump would be relatively easy, because it only takes a majority of the House. That could end up happening, I suppose (it could happen even to Hillary, if the GOP retains a House majority). But, as I said earlier, impeachment itself is more or less irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is conviction, as Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky woes demonstrated.
And conviction is very very difficult—made purposely so by the Founders. It requires a two-thirds majority, and that isn’t easy to obtain because it means that only 33 [*see NOTE 2 below] Senate votes can block it. Do you really think a President Trump couldn’t find 33 [*see NOTE 2 below] senators (probably among the Republicans, I would assume) to either intimidate, promise favors to, threaten, or cajole into letting him do whatever he wanted? Have enough of them become such profiles in courage, such principled defenders of liberty, that you trust them to garner at least 67 votes for this?
I certainly don’t.
It also is a sad commentary on the state we’ve reached that, “Vote for Trump, he’s easier to impeach!” has become a rallying cry. And yet that’s where we’re at.
I’ve said many times that I don’t know if I can bring myself to vote for Trump, and I probably won’t know till I’m in that booth in November. But if I do vote for him—and I might—it won’t be with the idea that he could be removed through the impeachment/conviction process if he oversteps. Sorry, I just don’t see it that way. And I suggest if you are voting for Trump—and I assume most of you are—that you do so with eyes open, and not reassure yourself that he could or would be removed by that GOPe you otherwise so deeply distrust.
[NOTE: I’m well aware of the fact that Nixon resigned because enough Republicans turned on him that he realized he probably would be impeached and convicted. The Republican leaders had come to him and told him so. But those days and those types of people are, for the most part, long gone.]
[*NOTE 2: I think of 33 as the threshold. But of course the number is 34, not 33, in order to acquit.]
“Your premisses, your conclusion”, as the Copleston used to say.
The problem is the premisses which you have stipulated, and the contrary precedents which you have stipulated away.
@DNW:
Can you expand on that, or would you like us to guess what you mean?
I think this is about right, though a Republican Party would have a harder time resisting calls for impeachment, and would pay a higher political price.
If Trump wins, then the GOP is his. He will have bought it and will own it. This is why I refuse to vote for him even if he is the lesser of two evils. I want the Republican party back, and the only way that will happen is if Trump loses, and loses big.
Wooly Bully Says:
“If Trump wins, then the GOP is his. He will have bought it and will own it. This is why I refuse to vote for him even if he is the lesser of two evils. I want the Republican party back, and the only way that will happen is if Trump loses, and loses big.”
I agree with that.
Trump must lose because otherwise all the worst actors will see it as a vindication of their views, and I already know the core alt-right are just as bad as people have been saying.
I agree with Neo’s premise in that I do not think there is a collective will to impeach any President–or former Secretary of State for that matter–for any imaginable offense.
But, Neo, we need to get beyond such fanciful notions to justify voting for Trump. I believe that I was as skeptical of Trump as you are; but, I have accepted that he is the only viable choice. So, I no longer look for, or discuss, Trump’s faults; but, instead look for his attributes. If he can learn to discipline himself, and he seems to be making some progress, this search may be productive.
Noteworthy perhaps. Mark Levin just announced that he will vote for Trump. Not exactly an endorsement; but, a significant statement from a man I consider one of the most doctrinaire, and smartest, of the conservatives. I also respect him as one of the foremost public advocates for the constitution.
Wooly Bully and Matt_Se, your positions are sort of the flip side of those who refused to vote for Romney. I won’t claim that was the only reason, but nevertheless eight years of Obama followed. I would be very concerned if the country had to endure twelve to sixteen years of Obama-Clinton.
If Trump turns bad; it would at least be in a different direction. Instead of destroying the Republican party, it could just as well have the opposite effect, as Reagan followed Nixon as the face of the party.
Not only did that help us to get eight years
Bully and Matt,
If Trump loses badly, you will simply have a broken party, and not one worth having when 2020 comes rolling around. The Democrats can see the goal line, and they will steam right past it in victory. The 2012 election was the warning, and yet the party didn’t heed it and Trump was all that was left to take it up.
” I suggest if you are voting for Trump–and I assume most of you are–that you do so with eyes open, and not reassure yourself that he could or would be removed” – Neo
That’s just it. We need to be clear minded, eyes wide open.
Problem is, it seems many here are hardly so wrt trump. Maybe it is the assumption that most (all?) here are “relutctant” on trump.
Too many are arguing a little too vociferously in favor of trump, and their style, content and nature of their arguments don’t seem to be reflecting a “reluctance”. There just doesn’t seem to be a step too far possible for them with trump. Clear minded? Eyes wide open? One wonders.
Of course, there are some commenters who are genuinely “reluctant”, such as those who’ve commented merely that they expect (hope?) Congress, media, SCOTUS would all be barriers to any over-reach by trump, but haven’t said much more. That, at least, is a recognition of one of the significant potential downside risks with trump.
These latter commenters seem as numerous (perhaps a silent majority?) as those of us who are arguing that both candidates are unacceptable – d*mnn few, and we do share a struggle to come to terms with what we have before us.
“If Trump turns bad; it would at least be in a different direction. “ – Oldflyer
Very much disagree with this supposition.
trump has a history of supporting Dem positions, and big government solutions. There are few conservative proposals, and on those he is so mutable as to render those as merely nice possibilities to hope for, but not bet on.
Furthermore, he all but promises to expand the role of POTUS (making obama look like a jayvee) and admits to not being tied to what the Constitution says.
That all seems to be very much in the SAME direction as clinton and the Dems. And, there is a very good chance he may take it further than clinton can.
Well, we really dont have a choice though do we Neo?
No we dont, so Im telling everyone the Donald’s impeachable anyway.
Let the circus continue.
I wouldn’t care about impeaching Trump if Reps in Congress could just get him to listen to them about issues. Trump has had the luxury of being able to harp loudly on things he hasn’t studied. In office, he would have to deal with thousands of things about which he knows nothing. Since he doesn’t like to read up on issues,we had better hope that some rational advisers are there to pick up the slack. I suspect that Trump will be overwhelmed by the variety if things he has to deal with and will seek to avoid doiing things himself.
“If Trump loses badly, you will simply have a broken party” – Yancy
One wonders if that ain’t so already.
What a major trump loss would serve is to discredit the idea that a populist in the form of trump (flawed character, no discernible governing philosophy, mutable, erratic and grossly negative campaign). It would be a resounding refutation of the direction he took the GOP in.
In this scenario, the conservative / evangelical side have a better chance at recovering dominance in the GOP.
As for 2020, a lot depends on how quickly they can recover and rebrand vs continue to be stained by trumpism and the alt-r who have latched on.
That said, a landslide will also give the Dems room to claim that clinton has a mandate. Maybe less so if the GOP retain majorities in both chambers of Congress.
neo,
I for one can’t deny that you may well be right about the chances of convicting an out of control Trump. But “may be right” is not the same as absolute certainty and, as you yourself just stated, impeachment and conviction will never happen to the First Woman President. So again, even if the difference in probability is infinitesimally small, we cannot definitively state there to be no possibility of a difference, which under extreme enough circumstances could be critical. No matter the angle, the choice comes down between probably really bad and the certainty of really bad.
“I want the Republican party back” Wholly Bully
Setting aside the argument that the party you wish to have back hasn’t existed since Reagan and setting aside the argument that such a fractured party represents a ‘humpty dumpty’ situation…
You’re wishing for a party that has consistently demonstrated a willingness to slowly slide into the collective…
“Trump must lose because otherwise all the worst actors will see it as a vindication of their views” Matt_SE
It’s true that should Trump win, “the worst actors will see it as a vindication of their views”. It’s also true that if Hillary wins, 25 million new ‘undocumented’ democrats ensures permanent, one party rule in America. You would avoid the storm, while discounting the tsunami that will sweep away our ability to resist.
“That’s just it. We need to be clear minded, eyes wide open.” Big Maq
So says the man, while ignoring the tsunami approaching.
“There just doesn’t seem to be a step too far possible for them with trump.”
Once again I ask, where for you does that line lie where liberty is, if grudgingly, surrendered? As, in posing the question, honesty compels you accept the obligation to also offer an answer.
I have a question for the nevertrumpers. IF Trump loses, but by the very smallest of margins in the electoral college, will it be fair to say that a refusal to vote for him cost him the election and, that would be evidence of indirect support for Hillary?
I continue to marvel at the never-Trumpers, those who think he will turn into a tyrant. A fear tinged with paranoia that leads them to accept Hillary, in disregard for her and First Man’s manifest grotesque corruption, in the hope the country can be resurrected later, though not before 2020.
If Hillary becomes POTUS, the country will be a corpse in 2020. There can be no resurrection from another four years of rule by the Democratic Party. The nation is on life support now, hanging by a judicial thread.
Just like you cannot resurrect a human who has had no pulse or respiration for five minutes. It really does not take long, does it? It will just remain to declare the Republic dead and fill out the death certificate with the cause of death. Which should read “Willful Disregard of the Obvious.”
GB: I have a question for the nevertrumpers. IF Trump loses, but by the very smallest of margins in the electoral college, will it be fair to say that a refusal to vote for him cost him the election and, that would be evidence of indirect support for Hillary?
That depends. If you live in a state which Clinton wins by a landslide, then one measly little vote one way or another wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. I’m not suggesting that anyone vote Libertarian in a close state; rather, if your state is a Clinton lock-up, or a Trump landslide–assuming there are any–then vote third party. If–and only if–my state is close, I’ll think about voting for Trump. Otherwise, not a chance.
Whoops! That first paragraph is a quote of GB. I should have put quotation marks on it or something. The second paragraph is my maunderings.
Wolly Bully,
Yes, that would probably apply only in a swing state. Provided that a state thought blue or red, even in a close election, reliably actually stayed in those categories. If it was close however in one of those states they would have moved into the swing state category.
That is a potential conundrum that nevertrumpers may face. Among others, CNN now has Trump ahead by two points.
I was addressing what Neo had written and posited, so I used the possessive pronoun “your”.
Take “the Copleston”, as referring to Fredrick Copleston, the famous historian of philosophy, in the same jokey way as “the Donald” refers to Trump.
The phrase, “your premisses your conclusion”, is a paraphrase of the sense implicit in remarks he made responding to Bryan Magee during an interview on Kant; wherein he phrased the old formula as: “Kant’s premisses, Kant’s conclusion”. Meaning of course, that if you grant or stipulate the soundness of certain predicates when used as premisses in an argument, a particular conclusion will necessarily follow, though it may be false.
Neo, taking note I believe of an observation I had earlier made regarding the comparative honor of Republicans on questions of principle as compared with Democrats who obviously have neither personal honor or worthwhile principles, has stated in brackets that the example I had given of Nixon, a Republican, who was forced out of office by his own party, is no longer a relevant precedent because the character of Republican senators has fallen so far. (1)
If she has provided evidence of this apart from her own assertion that it was so, I obviously missed it.
Therefore, it seemed to be a “fact” by mere stipulation; and, her argument assumes it seems to me then, the form of a modus ponens:
1, If Republicans have less honor and fewer principles than they once did, then, it is no safer a political bet to elect Trump as President than it would be to elect Hillary.
2, Republicans have less honor and fewer principles than they once did. [Affirming the antecedent; which is by stipulation, taken as a sound premiss]
3, Therefore: it is no safer a political bet to elect Trump, than it is to elect Hillary.
None of this of course gets down to naming individual cases of unprincipled Republican senators who would be apt to roll over for Trump, nor explains why a mere impeachment should not have some effect, even if it merely ties the hands of the executive.
… hope this helps
DNW,
Admittedly without providing supportive facts, I share neo’s perception that in the aggregate, GOP congressmen are less principled than their predecessors. What I find of interest is the corollary that attaches to that belief, namely that a less principled GOP congress is far more likely to support (both collaboratively and through inaction) a slow slide into the collective. An issue that, IF I recall correctly, neo has heretofore somewhat disputed in her insistence that the GOP has done more in Congress than many are willing to credit.
Every person who reads and comments on this blog would be in prison doing twenty to life for the crimes the Clintons have committed from their time in Arkansas to now. All the men would be serving time for sexual assault and rape had we behaved like Bill Clinton. Why all the navel gazing and delicate sensibilities about Trump? They’re criminals and he’s not. He’s a big time executive, much bigger than Mitt Romney ever was. He’s loud and uncouth, but so what. To distain him for that you’ve bought into the elitist narrative of the MSM, the DC insiders, and the left wing universities. He’s from the world of WWE and NASCAR. Sorry but get over it.
A man who took his father’s business and grew it into an enterprise with 20K employees is talented and has real executive abilities. He could have blown it all on women and toys, but he didn’t (though he does like the ladies). Compare that with Bill Clinton whose experience as governor was state business in the am, McDonalds for lunch, and screwing his latest mistress in the afternoon. Obama’s greatest accomplishments were getting elected President of the Harvard Law Review and voting present during his seven terms in the Illinois legislature. As for Hillary, what? Funneling money to the various Clinton Enterprises? Inventing the vast right wing conspiracy? Staying out of jail?
Just understand that if HRC becomes president, everything will be for sale and all her foreign policy will be determined by blackmail of her by China, Russia, … and all the other countries that hacked her servers and phones.
Get over yourself. HRC is the end of the Republic, if 2012 wasn’t. Trump will be fine.
OK, from now on, any Trump impeachment theories will have to include an answer to this question:
For what?
Refusal to honor US debt? Giving illegal orders to troops? Violating a treaty? Something worse? Something less worse?
Nick, regarding impeachment theories, perhaps for any one of the things Obama has done that would have warranted such actions for any Republican. I think the first year, 2008, most of us tired of even putting breath to the thought, “imagine if Bush had done this!”
High crimes and misdemeanors.
And yes, contra Black, something like transporting a female minor across interstate lines for immoral purposes in violation of Federal law, should and would be an impeachable offense.
I have not made a formal analysis as to who would be easily bought and paid for or frightened by Trump; nor am I certain what criteria would suffice to do so.
But when you look at the list of Republican Senators here from end of May, it does not seem to be overwhelmingly populated with sycophants …http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/full-list-where-every-republican-in-congress-stands-on-donald-trump/article/2592510
Yes, I think that he could not. I do not think that Donald Trump could buy or intimidate 33 Republican senators into allowing him to do dangerous, criminal, and tyrannical things.
On the other hand, based on their past actions as well as their explicit anti-constitutional governance ideology, I do not believe that more than 2 or 3 Democrats would ever act to prevent Clinton from doing anything.
And if, in the unlikely event that I am wrong about the Republicans, and I know I cannot be wrong about the Democrats, then to hell with such a people, and such a polity, and such a social contract, and here is to its emerging replacement.
“OK, from now on, any Trump impeachment theories will have to include an answer to this question:
For what?
Refusal to honor US debt? Giving illegal orders to troops? Violating a treaty? Something worse? Something less worse?” – Nick
If I understand correctly, you are asking what would be the circumstances that would motivate enough in Congress to complete the process – as in impeach AND convict. Correct?
If so, a quote from some 1974 handbook on impeachment is not a sufficient answer.
We already have plenty of (too many) laws on the books to make anyone a criminal. Yet, not everyone is in jail.
Some of what you mentioned might well fall under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” – BUT, critically, is any one of those enough to motivate Congress to move on this?
Given how so many in the GOP and conservative media have quickly fallen in line, I highly, highly doubt there is much anyone would do unless it become grievous – by then it is likely too late.
It comes down to the question – how far is a step too far?
DNW,
To avoid conviction, an out of control Trump would not have to buy or intimidate 33 Republican senators. Any mix of 33 (34?) would do.
We have no way of knowing that in the event of such a collapse in public morality, that its emerging replacement would not be even worse. Especially as that emerging replacement could well be of the Left. There’s no guarantee that post Trump will be better, it may well amount to simply a delay in the triumph of the Left. Nevertheless, IMO a long shot is always better than a certain loss.
There are only two choices.
Maybe it is amusing to conjecture about impeachment for some hypothetical high crime or misdemeanor that Trump might, or probably not, commit; it is an interesting debate point that in the real world serves no purpose.
As I said, I am slowly coming around to the idea that there might be more to Trump than I originally credited. l hope so. Despite all the negatives I have written about him; I really do not believe that he would try establish himself as a Despot. He might try to run roughshod over Congress–and he would not be the first by a long shot. On the other hand, Congress is not without resources; so, if they put on their big boy, and girl, faces (I near typed pants) they should be able to hold their own. I do believe that he would put the interests of America first. I also believe, given his business successes, that he does take expert advice.
None of that really matters now. There is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that Hillary, allied with a Democrat controlled Congress (or even one with an obstructionist minority), and a progressive federal judiciary would take this country down a terrible road.
Those are the stark realities.
To the doom-and-gloomers: If we survived eight years of Obama, that proves that we can survive anything. So, I’m not impressed with the Chicken Little act.
“Once again I ask, where for you does that line lie where liberty is, if grudgingly, surrendered?” – GB
Your story is trump is certainly authoritarian. Not buying that supporting trump (i.e. grudgingly surrender liberty) is in any conceivable way the right path to retain / recover our liberty.
As I’ve responded in past, BOTH candidates are well beyond that line. Neither are acceptable. I’ve been very clear about that.
The problem is not that I value liberty and find these candidates awful.
It is that there are many here who presumably value liberty and claim to be reluctant trump but don’t seem to have any limit in mind when opposing clinton.
There is plenty of downside risk with trump with very little upside. There is something more at play to make them so steadfast trump.
I won’t re-litigate all the issues here, but if you are predicting he is authoritarian (and an acceptable outcome), and I am saying that a possibility (a horrible one), are the other trump supporters here in line with your view or mine, or does it matter to them at all?
“Maybe it is amusing to conjecture about impeachment for some hypothetical high crime or misdemeanor that Trump might, or probably not, commit; it is an interesting debate point that in the real world serves no purpose.” – Oldflyer
You discard it to readily. It is an important consideration in the calculation of supporting trump or not.
Many have stated that the ability to impeach is a key assumption in their support of trump.
That said, while I don’t think it probable that trump would become a “Despot”, his mutability, lack of a consistent governing philosophy, big government leanings, little concern for the Constitution and separation of powers, and volatile temperament MUST leave one SOME pause about just what the h*ll he’s going to do.
His (assumed) good intentions (“America First”) should be backed up by something more than the words.
So far, NOBODY can discern anything other than that human being is not clinton. All else is speculation and “hope”.
Well, I guess if you imagine he can buy Democrats, or that they would be naturally attuned to him, if say, he turned out to be a Democrat in man’s clothing.
The reason I mentioned Republican senators was because that is how Neo herself explicitly framed the issue.
The extreme hypothetical I was laying out, was in line with the predictions of the founders as to what was necessary for a republican form of government to survive.
It does not necessarily involve the survival of the mutated United Collectivist States as we might be forced to know it. Not as a union, as Dicey characterized it, but as a consolidated collectivist unity. What would be the purpose of underwriting, or protecting, or expressing any allegiance to, or solidarity with the glad inhabitants of, such a thing? Sentimentality? Grandma’s social security check?
LOL. The issue is not whether you will be allowed to live: the issue is as to how you will be allowed to live with another 4 to 8 to who knows how many years of Democrat legal and social and economic subversion.
The laws have already changed: imposing legal burdens, such as the individual shared responsibility mandate, which would have been unthinkable impositions on a free people at any prior time in American history.
If that makes a difference to you.
If so, better to vote it away if possible, while presumably possible, don’t you think?
Yancey Ward Says:
“…and Trump was all that was left to take it up.”
Not even close.
This blog has posted dozens and dozens of articles on other candidates who would’ve been better. Only the Trumpkins believe there was no other choice, because as I’ve said innumerable times, they are cynical burnouts.
harry the extremist Says:
“Well, we really dont have a choice though do we Neo?
No we dont, so Im telling everyone the Donald’s impeachable anyway.
Let the circus continue.”
This, neo-neocon, is why I said that cynicism is the country’s biggest problem.
DNW, that was a fascinating read on impeachment from Rep. Lofgren’s files. I haven’t read the whole thing, but there’s some impressive scholarship in there. How did you find that? I thought it’d be the kind of thing that would be available via some common repository. Not that it isn’t, of course, since it was openly published as far as it appears; but why is it in a particular Congresswoman’s directory?
I especially noticed two points:
1. the citation of SCOTUS cases in which the Supremes essentially endorsed a species of originalism – see note 56 on page 12 of the document;
2. The mention of U. S. Const. Art. II Sect. 2 noting that the President is not empowered to grant pardons in cases of impeachment – does this affect our judgement of President Ford’s preemptive pardon of Nixon?
GB Says:
“It’s also true that if Hillary wins, 25 million new ‘undocumented’ democrats ensures permanent, one party rule in America.”
I’m not so sure that’s true.
It would be a nice article for neo-neocon to recap the state of the legal challenges to Obama’s immigration policy. IIRC, it’s now in limbo. So I think it’s more likely that Hillary is bullshitting you, and that she can’t actually legalize these people.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
I have a question for the nevertrumpers. IF Trump loses, but by the very smallest of margins in the electoral college, will it be fair to say that a refusal to vote for him cost him the election and, that would be evidence of indirect support for Hillary?
@GB,
I consider Trump to be a moral threat to conservatism. At this point, I don’t give a shit about the Republican party. Hillary is not a mortal threat to conservatism because she’s outside the tent and is an agreed-upon enemy.
She can say anything she likes, but nobody will believe her. Trump is different.
There is no argument you can make that will persuade me to vote for my own extinction. The more you try, the angrier I get.
Frog Says:
I continue to marvel at the never-Trumpers, those who think he will turn into a tyrant.
I’m not sure if you’re intentionally straw manning us, or if you believe it. Either way, you don’t understand the opposition.
Chance of tyranny: very low.
Chance of turning the GOP into a corrupt, unprincipled, racist identity group: much higher.
Trump is leading a mob of jerks, trying to recruit more people into becoming jerks, and you’re cheering him on.
Frog Says:
If Hillary becomes POTUS, the country will be a corpse in 2020. There can be no resurrection from another four years of rule by the Democratic Party. The nation is on life support now, hanging by a judicial thread.
With this much melodrama, are you sure you’re not a 13 year old girl?
This country survived FOUR TERMS of FDR, at the same time as the Great Depression. I’m pretty sure we’ll survive 4 years of Hillary.
Maybe if you hadn’t nominated a clown, this election wouldn’t be uncertain right now.
DNW Says:
If she has provided evidence of this [Republican Senators’ declining character] apart from her own assertion that it was so, I obviously missed it.
So on the one hand, we have Trump because the base has never felt so betrayed by their representatives, and on the other hand we have no evidence of betrayal outside of neo-neocon’s fevered imagination.
LOL
In the dictionary next to “sophist,” there’s a picture of you.
@ Paul in Boston:
Trump is leading an unprincipled mob, and you’re part of it. I found it a bit more disturbing than being “loud and uncouth” when he said he’d order US soldiers to commit war crimes.
He also seems unimpressed with nuclear non-proliferation, an attitude which could get TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE KILLED.
You should think about that for a few weeks, and decide if it rises to the level that should concern citizens.
It is a flight of fancy to talk about impeaching Trump or Hillary for that matter to limit authoritarian or totalitarian impulses.
The Republicans control the house and senate and yet they congress can’t decide to impeach or censure the head of the IRS. They couldn’t do anything about Lois Lerner or any of the other apparatchiks in the EPA, VA for exmple. Trey and the FOX News Benghazi show accomplished nothing.
Impeachment? Cloud cuckoo land indeed.
@ OM:
This was Obama’s coup: he learned how to game the system. All a president has to do to amass more power is to have his cronies obstruct everything in Congress, and have the liberal press refuse to report on it.
This is working because the American people have become cynical and jaded at least, and corrupt as well on the Democrat side.
But don’t worry the press will protect the country if Trump goes rouge! /lol
What would a rouge Trump be? Oh, just the usual Trump, but imagine Capt. Wrongnway Peachfuz with chronic ‘roid rage. Yes, Trump in charge of the DOD, IRS, BATF, DOJ, DHS, HHS. What could conceivably go wrong? /s
Wolly Bully @7:57,
You’re essentially implying that the Left can never reach the point where they can’t be stopped. While also arguing that if they can reach that point, it won’t happen during the next 4-8 years. That SCOTUS appointments, ever deeper social engineering, Executive orders, federal regulations and greater restrictions on 1st and 2nd amendments will not result in irreversible changes. That illegal immigration and a million more Muslim migrants will not have a cumulative impact.
Big Maq,
That neither is acceptable is true… and irrelevant. What is relevant is which one will occupy the WH. If you live in a swing state, you choose one or the other, Since if you refuse to vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate, you have in effect chosen Hillary.
I’m sorry that is unpalatable, sorry that it is revolting but there it is and there we stand.
GB has spoken! Peals of thunder! Clouds of Fire! The election is…..irrelevant. The royal “we.” : )
Matt_SE @ 9:28,
You’re right that Hillary can’t legalize illegals on her own. She’ll do that with a compliant Congress. And you’re kidding yourself if you think they won’t go along with her.
But that’s my point, a failure to vote for the excrable Trump is a vote for extinction. And, though it would be welcome, I’m not arguing to persuade you, I’m arguing the merits of the case in hopes of however briefly, stopping the death of individual liberty.
DNW:
I did explicitly frame the issue as being about Republican senators, but only because that’s the way it’s usually framed by those arguing that Trump could and perhaps would be impeached and then convicted if he overstepped.
I actually think he could promise and threaten enough Democratic senators, too, to help him get past that magic number of 33 refusing to convict him. Plus, if one of the problems is that he turns into a liberal Democrat, Democratic senators most definitely would not go along with any conviction.
“But that’s my point, a failure to vote for the excrable Trump is a vote for extinction.”
What extinction are you speaking of? I’m not sure it means what you think it does. Or are you going into the alt-right world of race identity? Could be, since stopping HRC demands leaving no stone unturned regardless what lies beneath it?
Neo:
Bingo! You put it concisely regarding the “hopes” assigned to DJTs political philosophy and history. If DJT runs true to form why would Dems oust him?
OM,
I haven’t engaged in personal attacks, that you can’t resist does not speak well of you but please, continue to make a fool of yourself, you do it so well.
“When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to slander…” Socrates
The extinction I speak of is individual liberty.
GB:
“The extinction I speak of is individual liberty.”
When I have to ask it is because you are vague and hyperbolic at times. Nothing personal “just the facts ma’am.”
With 100 senators voting, it takes 67 votes to convict, 34 to acquit. (I majored in math.)
bof:
Of course you are correct. Little brain glitch there; I think of 33 as the threshold that must be passed, but of course you need to get 34 to acquit. I’ll change it now.
OM,
When disaster threatens from afar, there are always those who ascribe warnings of it, as mere hyperbole. Normalcy bias is part of the human condition. Years ago, I too labeled those who warned of where we were headed as people seduced by their fears into exagerate hyperbole. Prior to 2012, I argued with commenter Ymarsakar that the US Military would never support a leftist takeover. Since then, events have forced me to conclude that it was I that was mistaken and, that under the right circumstances, it could happen.
Why all the navel gazing and delicate sensibilities about Trump? They’re criminals and he’s not.
Actually, I think he is a criminal. He’s ripped people off left, right and centre. He’s bent eminent domain, deliberately gone into bankruptcy and made promises he had no intention of keeping. He’s stolen people’s money, time and again.
Sure, he’s rich enough to afford lawyers that keep him out of prison. So that makes him and the Clintons very similar then.
GB;
“Prior to 2012, I argued with commenter Ymarsakar that the US Military would never support a leftist takeover. Since then, events have forced me to conclude that it was I that was mistaken and, that under the right circumstances, it could happen.”
Based on reading your back and forth with “Y” that comment thread probably went on for days.
Regarding the military I suggest that Trump as C&C makes the probability of martial law and a putsh more likely than with tHRC. You may disagree; opinions, speculations, and predictions being what they are.
One person’s hyperbole is another’s sage prediction? It seems that “Y” was mistaken. I guess timing is everything.
OM,
It did not. Assumptions rarely prove accurate.
Trump declaring martial law is a possibility but would require a severe crisis. Attempting a putsch in America would require the US Military’s support. The problem Trump would face is the part of the military from whom he would require support are the ones most loyal to their oath to the Constitution. Whereas, those whose support Hillary would need are those sympathetic to the Left and therefore, least loyal in their oath to the Constitution.
addendum: “One person’s hyperbole is another’s sage prediction? It seems that “Y” was mistaken. I guess timing is everything.”
Not at all. If events prove that what was labeled by some to be hyperbole was in fact a sage prediction… then it never was hyperbole in the first place and it is those who labeled it such that were mistaken.
Nor was Y mistaken, IMO premature but he accurately spotted the trend within the military much earlier than I. A trend which will almost certainly reach completion under a Pres. Hillary. The US Military is also being “fundamentally transformed”.
GB:
Back into hyperbole land once again, you just can’t stay away. It (whatever it is today) hasn’t happened yet but it almost certainly will. Right. Not at all. It never was hyperbole because I say so. Later.
I posted the link for the interest it held as regards the grounds for impeachment.
As the research noted, a statutory crime was not a necessary element.
In fact, on the other side of the table exist those who would argue that crimes which would have fit the terms of the old white slavery act would not justify an impeachment. So much for those “scholars”. These grovelers must come from the Bill Moyers school of presidential fellation cult.
”
I cannot answer the repository rationale question. I typed into Google : ” staff report, ‘Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment’ ” , and up came several choices.
The PDF which is available for a download, is for some reason also “protected” against text copying. What motivation for this there should be other than petulance on the part of the provider, I cannot say; unless it was some default setting on the scanner which was used. So I used the other site with the HTML embedded text for the text copy.
“That neither is acceptable is true… and irrelevant.” – GB
Just because you declare it irrelevant doesn’t make it so.
We still have a choice and we can refuse to vote for either of them.
You’ve given up. You’ve made the case before that trump is likely an authoritarian and that would be “better” than clinton, as you have an overwrought case of what transpires in the next four years with her. So, you are happy to convince all that this is a binary only election.
Because there are enough people like you (for which the realm of acceptable is well beyond core principles as to be anathema) pushing it, and because few have enough faith in their own convictions or have given up even trying (if they ever really did), they will check to see what everyone else is doing, and (because most are like themselves) won’t move, then they will stick with a binary paradigm they are being told is the only possibility.
“Safety” in numbers psychology? Only there is no safety in following that path.
Not as the constitutional polity it had been. I am surprised that you have not learned better while reading here, as Neo as a lawyer herself knows, and has tried instruct others on this very matter.
Type in “Judicial Revolution and Roosevelt” or “Court packing scheme”, or “Constitutional revolution of 1937”.
Then take a look at the 1942 case Neo has rightly pointed to as an example of the kind of upending of constitutional interpretation brought about by the progressive subversion of constitutional principles. Wickard v Filburn
Then consider the term “judicial putsch” as more recently used by Scalia in another case.
Yeah, we may survive as positive-rights-granted-property of the state or “community”, and the name United States of America may still be the official title of the polity. For what little that is worth to anyone who cares about their lost liberties and rights.
I am guessing that there are a certain number of persons supposedly “conservative”, who do not think that ObamaCare was in fact all that bad as a loss of liberty in principle; and are willing to see the young who are innocent of any crime other than having been born, compelled to underwrite the medical expenses of the middle-aged guilty. These are the “depends on whose ox is being gored” conservatives.
Big Maq,
“Just because you declare it irrelevant doesn’t make it so.”
Of course it doesn’t make it so. It’s NOT a ‘declaration’, it’s an observation of a factual reality. What makes it a factual reality rather than an arrogant opinion is that regardless of whether either is acceptable… will have no effect upon the fact that one or the other will be the next President. Since one or the other will occupy the WH, their ‘unacceptability’ is irrelevant, since it will happen anyway.
“Reality is what happens whether we like it or not.” unknown
You certainly can refuse to vote for either of them. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the assertion that, if you live in a state where the contest is close, your refusal to vote will directly assist Clinton.
But by all means demonstrate how that is a falsity without that is, just insisting that the choice is only binary, if we believe it to be. Show, with specifics how Johnson can gain enough electoral votes to beat both Trump and Hillary.
“You’ve given up. You’ve made the case before that trump is likely an authoritarian and that would be “better” than clinton, as you have an overwrought case of what transpires in the next four years with her.”
Since when is accepting reality ‘giving up’? The ‘reality’ to which I refer is a dysfunctional electorate that elected Obama twice. That currently grants him a 54% approval rating. And a fractured electorate opposed to Obama/Clinton that cannot reach consensus, resulting in our current choice. Those are also factual realities. That I don’t like it is… irrelevant to that reality.
Yes, I have stated the rationale that leads me to conclude that authoritarianism presents a better chance for societal recovery, than does a leftist collective. That assessment is based in historical fact and you have yet to rebut that rationale. To do so, simply demonstrate how a Chavez/Castro type regime is easier to recover from than is a Pinochet type regime.
Declaring the Presidential choice to NOT be binary also does not make it so and, all you have offered in support of that position is that “it’s only binary because you believe it to be so”, which BTW is also known as ‘magical thinking’.
I am not responsible for what other people think and it’s more than a bit presumptuous of you to accuse those who frequent this blog of being so soft-minded that they fall prey to group-think.
Wooly Bully Says:
September 7th, 2016 at 7:57 pm
To the doom-and-gloomers: If we survived eight years of Obama, that proves that we can survive anything. So, I’m not impressed with the Chicken Little act.
The fact that the country is not dead yet does not mean it is not dying.
Obama and the Democrats have implanted cancers into the national body, and put it on immunosuppressives.
“We can survive anything” is a hollow, absurd and preposterous claim.
Ok. We start with:
That is a very peculiar and ambiguous framing; remarkably full to overflowing given its shortness with equivocal weasel words: “the base”, “felt”, “betrayed”.
Does “felt so betrayed” mean they were betrayed in the way you seem to suggest is possible with Trump, and by men of bad character who would approve of Cesarism?
Cruz spoke of betrayal in terms of the Senate Majority leadership’s dereliction on bills and named a couple of names. I don’t recall him naming 34 names nor Neo naming any …
Though in all she has said she might have done so, and could do so even now if she had names in mind.
This framing is obviously the result of your own fevered imagination.
Contrarily, Neo is on record as having stated that the Republicans did in fact try to do a number of principled things, and that some of the hostility was ignorant, uninformed and unjustifiable.
Like your assertions.
LOL indeed.
You had snappishly asked for an explanation of what I meant with regard to a “your premisses, your conclusion” phrase I used.
I took the modest trouble to give you a generous and thorough explanation.
Still apparently piqued, you take a straw man scenario of your own manufacture – the premise of which is undermined in its construction by Neo’s own postings – and then accuse me of sophistry.
What’s your malfunction, Matt?
“the Trumpkins believe there was no other choice, because as I’ve said innumerable times, they are cynical burnouts.
.
It would be a nice article for neo-neocon to recap the state of the legal challenges to Obama’s immigration policy. IIRC, it’s now in limbo. So I think it’s more likely that Hillary is bullshitting you, and that she can’t actually legalize these people.
.
Hillary is not a mortal threat to conservatism because she’s outside the tent and is an agreed-upon enemy.
She can say anything she likes, but nobody will believe her. Trump is different.
.
Chance of tyranny: very low.
Chance of turning the GOP into a corrupt, unprincipled, racist identity group: much higher.
Trump is leading a mob of jerks, trying to recruit more people into becoming jerks, and you’re cheering him on.
.
This country survived FOUR TERMS of FDR, at the same time as the Great Depression. I’m pretty sure we’ll survive 4 years of Hillary.
.
So on the one hand, we have Trump because the base has never felt so betrayed by their representatives, and on the other hand we have no evidence of betrayal outside of neo-neocon’s fevered imagination.
.
I found it a bit more disturbing than being “loud and uncouth” when he said he’d order US soldiers to commit war crimes.
He also seems unimpressed with nuclear non-proliferation, an attitude which could get TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE KILLED.
.
This is working because the American people have become cynical and jaded at least, and corrupt as well on the Democrat side.” – Matt SE
Some very good points.
People have given up and are so desperate for a “win” that they barely / refuse to consider that the GOP today is not at all like the GOP previous. Sure there are several members who espouse many of the same old principles.
However, too many have crossed over, and rather quickly at that. The situation today is that trump has the power to define the GOP any way he sees fit and they are powerless (in their current mode of decision making / behavior) to stop it.
So what? We need change don’t we?
Well, what exactly is that change, that new definition?
Nobody really knows.
Why not?
Because trump has given us no governing philosophy, has been so mutable on so many issues, and a liar, not even “strategically”, but in all manners great and minor, that any position he stakes at one moment is hardly believable.
So, we are all in the position to need to guess at just what the h*ll trump will do.
That doesn’t seem to faze some people – probably those most cynical, those most likely to have abandoned any effort to work for the change they seek, for various reasons.
I repeat – anything we think trump will do is, at best, a “hope” – it is simply speculation, as for every point of proof we think we have, we can find counter points.
This should be shockingly scary.
If we so want to beat clinton, we ought to be asking just what is it that trump will deliver that is “not clinton”?
Since we don’t / cannot know for certain, we don’t even know if we are even getting something “better”.
If we cannot believe what he says during the campaign, where do we go for clues as to trump’s likely direction?
Perhaps his past statements are a better indication of his real thinking.
In those, we find he is very much a Democrat. It is more consistent to think of trump as a big government guy who thinks the only problem is that they don’t have “smart people” running it, and that it could be a lot more “efficient”. The problem is NOT government involvement, but the “incompetence”. He gives us these sentiments, but very little on how he would achieve that.
So just what will be “better”?
Nobody really knows. They only “hope”, and think that “hope” is better than the “sureity” they see with clinton.
But that ignores one thing… What is the downside risk with trump?
We also have to look and guess at his character and motivation. That is less than reassuring, and hardly a good differentiator from clinton. In fact, it introduces significant downside risk. His personality (mercurial temperament) adds a volatility to that risk (i.e. more extreme consequences).
So just what will be “better”?
A slim “hope”, which may well turn into equally as bad (more Dem policies, more big government, more centralized power in the Presidency, more left SCOTUS) or worse consequences, as the “sureity” of clinton’s consequences.
Seems most cases made in comments here in favor of trump are a speculative, wished for, best case scenario vs a worst case for clinton.
“So just what will be “better”? Nobody really knows. They only “hope”, and think that “hope” is better than the “sureity” they see with clinton.” Big Maq
Is there any reasonable doubt as to Hillary’s intentions?
Yes, nobody really knows what Trump will do, which of course includes you. So uncertainty vs certainty.
We have before us a choice between an advocate of an ideology that vehemently opposes individual liberty in favor of the collective. Versus an individual that, we do know favors authoritarian, crony capitalism. The certainty of a path that leads to Chavez/Castro VS the possibility of a Pinochet.
That’s all we have. Yes, it sucks. Make your choice. And, if in a state closely contested, a refusal to vote for Trump directly assists in the furtherance on the path to the collective. That is the reality which you deny. Would that it were different but there it is and no amount of, ‘reality is what we believe it to be’ will change reality in the least. To confirm it, jump out a ten story window and argue with reality all the way down.
Philip, I tried to respond to your question but it did not take.
My answer was to the effect that as the punishment for an impeachment conviction was simply removal from office, and insofar as the articles referred by the Judiciary Committee to the House had not been formally taken up much less voted on, there was no actual impeachment.
Here, I would read “in cases of impeachment” to mean cases wherein the party had been impeached and by that means removed from office. To “pardon” that, would be for the executive to overturn the act of the legislative, since the only disability per se for such a conviction is the removal from office.
Nixon was out of office, and an impeachment trial and removal was pointless.
Thus Ford’s pardon was for possible offenses against the United States which might have arisen to notice during an impeachment trial but which would have to be criminally or civilly pursued after Nixon had left office.
I guess I could take a look at the annotated Constitution and see what it has to say, but this is probably enough for both of us considering the forum.
Regards,
G.B.:
I don’t know what you mean about the “possibility of a Pinochet.” Is that good or bad? My sense is you think, bad.
I do not. Pinochet saved Chile from going down the rathole of leftism.
There were those unfortunate death squads and folks who “disappeared.” Not a happy time in Chile. Be careful what you wish for, as they say.
OM: total Chileans killed or disappeared was less than 3000-4,000. Can’t overthrow a communist Allende without breaking a few eggs.
The result for Chile was extremely happy. That includes the privatization of retirement accounts, which before was on the FDR Social Security model. Since Pinochet, those accounts belong to individual Chileans, and are passed on to heirs after death instead of staying in the SS pool.
Chile is the best country in Latin America, socio-politically.
“The certainty of a path that leads to Chavez/Castro VS the possibility of a Pinochet. “ – GB
Again. Time frame?!
You either MUST be assuming Chavez/Castro in the next four years or not.
If not in the next four years, then we do have an opportunity to turn it around with someone better, and therefore is not a certainty.
If, even without Chavez/Castro in the next four years, you say all is lost, your case is overwrought. It is the same thing we heard in 2008, 2012, and now 2016, only we don’t have an acceptable GOP candidate for some of us.
If it is Chavez/Castro within the next four years, your case is overwrought.
But you are admitting the possibility of Pinochet in the next four years (you’ve seemed to back off on your probability of this).
.
“My sense is you think (Pinochet is) bad. I do not. Pinochet saved Chile from going down the rathole of leftism.” – Frog to GB
@Frog – GB, not too long ago, made the same argument as you today.
I just have to wonder how much you guys have really tried to save anything over these past few years, that you express that having a possible Pinochet is a “good thing” now.
If trump were to be so, what world are you really trying to save with trump?
It surely isn’t the one I thought we were thinking about on this, a conservative blog.
.
“total Chileans killed or disappeared was less than 3000-4,000. Can’t overthrow a communist Allende without breaking a few eggs.” – Frog
4000 people are just a few broken eggs!!!! Unbelievable!
I think we are now seeing more clearly where this debate is landing. There really isn’t a limit in some people’s mind in opposition to clinton. Whatever trump turns out to be, is acceptable.
If he wasn’t acceptable, surely there’d be more acceptance and understanding of the criticism made here wrt trump, and less rigorous defense of him.
IDK. Just doesn’t seem too darn “reluctant”, as I can tell.
Frog,
I mean that with Trump there is the worst case possibility that he will turn out to be a Pinochet. That was bad, as it is highly unlikely that all of the disappeared were bad people.
But from the standpoint of a society’s ability to recover from a horrific time, history demonstrates that a right wing dictator is much to be preferred over a left wing collectivist regime.
Though they are both tyrannical, I imagine that is because a right wing regime basically wishes to preserve the society’s traditional culture, whereas a left wing regime wishes to fundamentally transform society, which unavoidably leads to a totalitarian entity, that being necessary to its survival.
The EU is showing signs of just that dynamic, if they weren’t importing migrants from Islamic cultures, which could easily derail that path, Europe would fall into totalitarianism within perhaps a few generations. That is not just my own independently arrived at opinion, both George Orwell and Ludwig von Mises predicted that such an eventuality was unavoidable for socialistic systems.
Big Maq,
“You either MUST be assuming Chavez/Castro in the next four years or not.”
No. I am saying that if Hillary gets in, other than a successful Article V convention, there will be no remaining legal, peaceful way to avoid arriving at that Chavez/Castro destination.
Because… 25 million ‘undocumented’ democrats will ensure that eventuality. Because… a permanently liberal/leftist SCOTUS majority will ensure that eventuality. Because… ever deeper indoctrination of current and future generations into the Left’s memes and narrative will ensure that outcome.
Here’s what you evidently cannot face; Bernie’s supporters are growing (the young) and Cruz’s supporters (that would be us) are aging and dying.
“It is the same thing we heard in 2008, 2012, and now 2016”
Look at what Obama has done in both the foreign and domestic arenas and tell me that we are not closer to those predictions eventuating. That we aren’t there yet, in no way invalidates that we are much closer than we were in 2004. You refuse to see the tipping point ahead, evidenced by the dynamics I just elucidated and, I can only conclude that the reason is because you won’t let yourself see it.
It is a historical fact that Pinochet saved Chile from going down the rathole of leftism. Whether that was morally justified is a separate issue.
I have never said nor even implied that the possibility of Trump being a Pinochet is a “good thing”. I have said that taking that chance is the only practicable means of at least temporarily stopping the Left. Since if Trump is not elected, an Article V convention will be the only remaining means of stopping the Left and, that I am not hopeful that it could be achieved.
“I think we are now seeing more clearly where this debate is landing. There really isn’t a limit in some people’s mind in opposition to clinton. Whatever trump turns out to be, is acceptable.”
I can’t speak for others but I know you are mistaken with me. As example, I will not knowingly target children to preserve liberty, even in war. If Trump violates the Constitution, I will criticize him as fiercely as I do Obama. And I don’t find Trump ‘acceptable’ now. I simply see no viable alternative.
Paul in Boston Says:
September 7th, 2016 at 5:55 pm
Our boy in Boston now thinks Nascar is something New York City culture elites are in. Just because they can buy it up, doesn’t mean it’s the same culture.
As for human arrogance and pride, I wonder if Paul will fall on his sword and use his gun, if and when he turns out to be wrong. But it’s not something I expect humans to be capable of, taking responsibility for their actions. That’s why they pour all their power and hopes on the US President, that’s their Savior, in truth.
Prior to 2012, I argued with commenter Ymarsakar that the US Military would never support a leftist takeover.
Late to the comment thread so this probably won’t be read, but no matter. I write things because I feel like it.
My memories of 2007-2012 arguments tend to be fuzzy. Since I usually would write a short one paragraph reply back then, then go on break from internet news for 4 weeks to 3 months. But if I recall, I did respond sharply to GB’s comment once, about the US military being loyal to the US Constitution, thus Hussein Could Not Declare Emergency Rule, so to speak. I contested that conclusion, not because I thought Hussein would use the military to declare a coup, since Hussein would more likely use his Civilian Security Force. You know, like BLM terrorists. I contested the conclusion because evil in DC was already infiltrating the US military. It’s not like the military is immune from Democrat Presidents in the past.
But back then I had 50-75% of my sources and reasons in reserve, which I never told anyone online about. Online being unsecured and also being spy bot copied by Google. It wasn’t worth it to “win” an argument. If I was right, people would see in a few years, if I was wrong, then that means God or whatever natural talent I had, cut me off.
I connected the dots, but to most people even if I explained the dots, it would just seem like I was making stuff up. So I’ll talk about some other stories and experiences I had, military related.
Some retired veterans used to always talk about revitalizing the US civic body with the draft. I contested that conclusion and theory by pointing out John Kerry and how Democrats could use the draft to get their enemies killed while deferring their family and allies. That’s because from my experience and second hand contacts, the military is a hierarchy and dictatorship, not a democracy where everyone had equal say. The President gave an order, and the US military carried it out. That kind of system is relatively easy to hijack, once you take out the President or replace the chain of command. It’s not going to be fast, and it wasn’t in 2012, but the story of “US military purges by Hussein” was at least known around then.
The Left’s Gramsci march through institutions was also known to me. Art has mentioned it before as well.
None of the above is from the half of the sources and reasons which I hide and refuse to tell people about, online. Maybe if I did, it would make more sense to people, but convincing people back in 2012 or even before then, was rather pointless. If Americans couldn’t figure out what hell this country was heading towards, it wasn’t up to me to change their hardened hearts. That was their own mistake and sin to deal with. My task, if anything, was merely to warn them. It’s not my responsibility to save them from themselves.
This way, later on they can’t accuse me of having hidden things from them, blaming me for where they helped get their country to. Although they will still blame people, like conservatives and Cruz now a days. That’s just how humans are. America has about 300 million of them. Things like that naturally collapse.
Since 2007, I wasn’t writing things to convince people. I was writing things to test people. All the paranoia and fear and anger people see in this election and a few years ago, about Hussein and Clinton, I felt all of that, except directed towards the Leftist alliance in the USA. All Democrats, all Leftists, all of them were the enemy. Yet online and in the public conscience, I found little to none of that. People were going along to get along, so I forwarded a few things to test them, see what their reactions were. People reacted about what I expected of them.
There are several sources and reasons behind why the Left was taking over the US military even before 2012, under Hussein’s Regime. I won’t point them out, since a lot of them are open data mined out by now. People can find out for themselves, if they truly want to know. If they cannot find out… well, then they weren’t meant to know in the first place. They can just sit and wait to see the results. It will be an interesting one, I can promise that.