The GOP Elites Want Trump to Win the Nomination

 

I know, I know, that is 100% the opposite of what they say, but how do they act? You see, I am told that the Democrats are working hard with their prosecution/persecution of Trump to make sure he is nominated so they can then beat him in the General. Not what they say they are doing, but it is the real behind the scenes plan. Crazy like a fox!

Well, I was thinking about this in regards to the GOPe. It seems to me, if party leaders were dedicated to stopping Trump, they sure have a funny way of doing it. It was the last debate that did it.

First off, the debates are all about finding the alternative to Trump. At least, that is what they say they are about. However, they keep having people on stage with no chance of that at all. Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie are not going to be that person. They were never going to be that person. It has been obvious from day one. The only two with a shot, who really have ever had a shot, are Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. So why is it that the GOP does not concentrate on the two of them? DeSantis representing the MAGA agenda less Trump and Haley the GOP Donor class. They are the two sides of the split in the GOP. If Trump were to drop dead, we would have a real fight on our hands between these two, because let’s be honest, the Donor class hates DeSantis, they just hate Trump more.

More to the point, why on Earth have the debate on a network no one watches? Ratings keep going down for these things. No one is paying attention. If the goal is to stop Trump, they are doing a really, I mean really, poor job at it. Like Lord North Government poor job.

So, if the Democrats are “crazy like a fox” I think it is fair to say that the GOPe are just as fox-like. I think their goal is a Trump Nomination and then a loss in the General.

Now, as to why that would be, I have an answer:

It is to destroy the MAGA uprising. Basically, the GOPe is willing to take as many losses as possible, all to get “their” party back. They have been sneering at the GOP base for the greater part of a decade now, and they are just fed up with these morons supporting Trump. Can’t they see just how bad Trump is? He is just so unfit! Especially after four years in office demonstrated most of the 2016 fears were unfounded. Trump supporters are too stupid to see it. Trump is a threat to democracy. Or decorum. Or something. Actually, the reality is, he is a threat to business as usual which works for the GOPe and Donor class.

So, they are willing to keep suffering with Marxist leaders, violations of the rule of law, politicization of every branch of government, whatever it takes, all to purge the GOP. Not of Trump mind you. No, they want to break the spirit of the Trump voter. Their goal is to make the Trump voter, the person wanting a change in the GOP to despair and give up. Go back to being a silent voter who votes how they tell them.

That is their plan. Let’s see how it goes.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Bryan G. Stephens: Especially after is four years in office demonstrated most of the 2016 fears were unfounded.

    I think you mean the ‘publicly expressed’ fears, not the real ones as mentioned at the end of the paragraph.

    I agree with your point regarding the Republican Party objectives. It has become very obvious that winning the White House is not high on the list.

    • #1
  2. DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: Especially after is four years in office demonstrated most of the 2016 fears were unfounded.

    I think you mean the ‘publicly expressed’ fears, not the real ones as mentioned at the end of the paragraph.

    I agree with your point regarding the Republican Party objectives. It has become very obvious that winning the White House is not high on the list.

    Just note how many Republicans fled the House after 2016 when they suddenly discovered they had the trifecta and would be required to keep promises.

    • #2
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order O… (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: Especially after is four years in office demonstrated most of the 2016 fears were unfounded.

    I think you mean the ‘publicly expressed’ fears, not the real ones as mentioned at the end of the paragraph.

    I agree with your point regarding the Republican Party objectives. It has become very obvious that winning the White House is not high on the list.

    Just note how many Republicans fled the House after 2016 when they suddenly discovered they had the trifecta and would be required to keep promises.

    Let’s field the best possible American candidates to compete in those races.

    • #3
  4. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    I think cut a deal with Ronna – keep her RNC chair in exchange for tanking the debates.   Why else would he support her after her losing record?

    I  hopc Trump has a plan for 2024, as every elite will turn against him as soon as he locks up the nomination

    • #4
  5. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Bryan G. Stephens: It is to destroy the MAGA uprising. Basically, the GOPe is willing to take as many losses as possible, all to get “their” party back.

    Nailed it.  First, they tried to co-opt Trump and to an extent Trumpism and see if he was compliant and willing to follow the Banana Republicans’ direction.  They couldn’t do it as blatantly as they co-opted the TEA Party, but they wanted to.  Once he was in office, they couldn’t (all) openly oppose them, but Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell did their level best to block everything that he campaigned on while passing what THEY felt that the country needed.  The idea was that first, the GOP would do tax reform, and THEN border security.  Yeah, right.  Ryan and McConnell were never going to do border security.  Of course, the GOP lost the house in ’18, and returning Speaker Pelosi, in theory, could have gotten Trump to go with wild infrastructure spending, but she didn’t. All of this mired in the idiotic Russian Collusion debacle that they all secretly hoped was true to get rid of him.  

    • #5
  6. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    Bryan G. Stephens: It is to destroy the MAGA uprising. Basically, the GOPe is willing to take as many losses as possible, all to get “their” party back.

    I understand that it looks that way.

    But taking as many losses as possible is exactly how you got Trump.

    • #6
  7. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    • #7
  8. DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    I mean, that was the Bush administration, so . . . yes?

    • #8
  9. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order O… (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    I mean, that was the Bush administration, so . . . yes?

    Yes… so my question really is, I guess, did President Bush, his key advisors, and Republican lawmakers just not see what was actually being done by the CIA and the FBI in the reorganization of intelligence, law enforcement, and national defense functions that puts us where we are today or did they support where it has led us?

    • #9
  10. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order O… (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    I mean, that was the Bush administration, so . . . yes?

    Yes… so my question really is, I guess, did President Bush, his key advisors, and Republican lawmakers just not see what was actually being done by the CIA and the FBI in the reorganization of intelligence, law enforcement, and national defense functions that puts us where we are today or did they support where it has led us?

    If you’re setting up a government program around some noble cause…

    You have the responsibility to include a feedback mechanism in the system that samples how good a job the program is doing, and makes corrections, rewarding success and penalizing failure.

    (Sort of like free-market capitalism.)

    If you don’t include that  feedback mechanism… whoo boy… anything goes!

    • #10
  11. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    namlliT noD (View Comment):
    But taking as many losses as possible is exactly how you got Trump.

    Well, the GOP did win…they just rarely executed on the goals of the people who elected them.

    • #11
  12. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Lower Order O… (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    I mean, that was the Bush administration, so . . . yes?

    Yes… so my question really is, I guess, did President Bush, his key advisors, and Republican lawmakers just not see what was actually being done by the CIA and the FBI in the reorganization of intelligence, law enforcement, and national defense functions that puts us where we are today or did they support where it has led us?

    If you’re setting up a government program around some noble cause…

    You have the responsibility to include a feedback mechanism in the system that samples how good a job the program is doing, and makes corrections, rewarding success and penalizing failure.

    (Sort of like free-market capitalism.)

    If you don’t include that feedback mechanism… whoo boy… anything goes!

    I remember a lot of the fretting and hand-wringing going on after 9/11 about some failures of communications between CIA and FBI and they dragged every other possible law-enforcement entity into to the continuing harangue that led to the Patriot Act ultimately destroying what had been up until then fairly effective government operations with some overstepping having little to do with organization beyond management attention. This unnecessary action, and the results deriving from it, is what I think has led to so much speculation that there was more behind the 9/11 attacks than was ever revealed and that looks more credible as time passes.

    • #12
  13. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    Well, I think it is two things.  First off, there is/was a belief that the institutions of the gov’t executed their jobs in a, mostly, non-partisan way when it came to national security.  Thus, handing them a massive tool for electronic surveillance to protect the US from terrorism made sense because it would help and the risk of it being abused was minimal.  What Trump proved to many people was that those institutions should never have been trusted with such power because they are peopled by corruptible humans who quickly discovered that they could abuse that power with zero consequences.  As much as I dislike Snowden, the revelation that NSA people were using the surveillance regime to spy on ex-girlfriends and nothing was done about it should have been a Klaxon warning us that if they were that corruptible about a small thing, what would happen when they saw something that they thought was really important…like the described existential threat that Trump posed and poses even moreso if he wins in ’24.  Just look at The Atlantic and the recent spate of articles talking about how the US is DEAD if Trump wins.  What should the line employee at the NSA/FBI/CIA/IRS/FEC/SEC/etc. do when “literally” the US will vanish if Trump wins.  Doesn’t that justify breaking any rule/law/moral/ethic?  Of course it does, which is the point of the entire exercise.

    • #13
  14. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    which is the point of the entire exercise.

    From the beginning, by whom? Names please.

    • #14
  15. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    I’m “liking” this post because I think it ought to be part of a broader discussion, so it ought to be on the Main Feed.

    I’m not sure I agree with the underlying thesis: that the GOPe wants Trump to win the nomination, and then lose the General, with the intended end-state of beating the Trump voters into submission. (@bryangstephens please correct me if I have this wrong.) This is too clever by half, as I don’t think the GOPe is that smart. However, I don’t disagree that you make a solid case for it.

    Rather, I think the GOPe is collectively behaving like a cowardly weakling. Too frightened to act decisively, and too weak to bring effective power to bear. Besides, I suspect the GOPe likes being the minority – it’s so much easier to work the hustle if no one expects you to actually, y’know, DO anything.

    • #15
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    I think cut a deal with Ronna – keep her RNC chair in exchange for tanking the debates. Why else would he support her after her losing record?

    I hopc Trump has a plan for 2024, as every elite will turn against him as soon as he locks up the nomination

    Struth! 

    • #16
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: It is to destroy the MAGA uprising. Basically, the GOPe is willing to take as many losses as possible, all to get “their” party back.

    I understand that it looks that way.

    But taking as many losses as possible is exactly how you got Trump.

    They got Trump by ignoring the upstarts and telling them to eat cake. They are just doubling down. 

    • #17
  18. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Here is a question regarding how we got here that continues to pop-up in my thinking. It is fairly clear to me that the changes promulgated in The Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks have greatly facilitated the later moves led by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine our existing Constitutional Republic and aid and abet foreign forces to invade America. Were the GOPe Elites knowingly part of that aiding and abetting, too shallow to see it, or it just didn’t matter to them?

    I think the latter two mostly. 

    But then again, I am more cynical than I used to be, so maybe all three.

    • #18
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    I’m “liking” this post because I think it ought to be part of a broader discussion, so it ought to be on the Main Feed.

    I’m not sure I agree with the underlying thesis: that the GOPe wants Trump to win the nomination, and then lose the General, with the intended end-state of beating the Trump voters into submission. (@ bryangstephens please correct me if I have this wrong.) This is too clever by half, as I don’t think the GOPe is that clever. However, I don’t disagree that you make a solid case for it.

    That is exactly what I am saying. 

    Rather, I think the GOPe is collectively behaving like a cowardly weakling. Too frightened to act decisively, and too weak to bring effective power to bear. Besides, I suspect the GOPe likes being the minority – it’s so much easier to work the hustle if no one expects you to actually, y’know, DO anything.

    I would be more inclined to agree with you here, if the standing line from the GOPe is that the Democrats want Trump to get the nomination and that is why they are trying to so hard to stop him. I mean, if the Democrats are that clever (and I am assured of this by no less than Andrew McCarthy among other leading lights in the conservative movement) why can’t the GOPe be that clever? We have seen lots of people argue they want to see the part get away from Trump and back to being the GOP they knew. 

    Either no party is “Crazy like a fox” or both are. There is no way the Democrats (I mean look at them) are that much more clever than the GOP.

    • #19
  20. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    Rather, I think the GOPe is collectively behaving like a cowardly weakling. Too frightened to act decisively, and too weak to bring effective power to bear. Besides, I suspect the GOPe likes being the minority – it’s so much easier to work the hustle if no one expects you to actually, y’know, DO anything.

    I would be more inclined to agree with you here, if the standing line from the GOPe is that the Democrats want Trump to get the nomination and that is why they are trying to so hard to stop him. I mean, if the Democrats are that clever (and I am assured of this by no less than Andrew McCarthy among other leading lights in the conservative movement) why can’t the GOPe be that clever? We have seen lots of people argue they want to see the part get away from Trump and back to being the GOP they knew.

    Either no party is “Crazy like a fox” or both are. There is no way the Democrats (I mean look at them) are that much more clever than the GOP.

    I’m not sure I agree that the Democrats can’t be much more clever than the GOPe. I know the laws of averages and large populations would lead to the conclusion that any similarly sized population would have a comparable set of intelligences. Maybe it looks that way because the Dems are “True Believers” in what they are pushing, as opposed to the GOPe who tend to be more “say one thing to get elected, do the opposite once in office” types?

    The thought just occurred to me: maybe it is not that either the Dems or the GOPe are both “crazy like a fox”, but rather that both hold the Republican base in the same degree of disgust and distain? Therefore, both look like they’re following the same playbook? (I don’t know…it’s just a thought.)

    • #20
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Read this to be up-to-date:

    • #21
  22. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    which is the point of the entire exercise.

    From the beginning, by whom? Names please.

    You have to go back a fairly long way.  One example was Lois Lerner.  Do you think she was directed by a political appointee to go after the TEA Party?  Or did she hear the rhetoric against it from President Obama and decide that she could help the country out by stopping them via extreme scrutiny by the IRS?  There wasn’t an email anywhere, or a PPT slide, or anything because “Can someone rid me of this troublesome Priest” is all that was required.  Now we see The Atlantic release an entire issue on how a second Trump term would spell the death of the US.  Here is a sampling from their home page:

    An excerpt from Mr Goldberg’s “A Warning”:

    I did not understand how so many ostensibly patriotic voters could subsequently embrace Trump, but mainly I couldn’t understand his soul sickness: How does a person come to such a rotten, depraved thought?

      Or this one about how Trump wants a military loyal to him as opposed to the Constitution

    If donald trump wins the next election, he will attempt to turn the men and women of the United States armed forces into praetorians loyal not to the Constitution, but only to him. This project will likely be among his administration’s highest priorities.

    What is the purpose of such articles? It is to give cover and credence to the members of the gov’t, and the military that when they are asked to break the law, violate their oaths, or bend their ethics, it is in a just cause…stopping Trump.  He is such a threat to the US that ANYTHING is justified in stopping him.  When I heard Mollie and David talking about this on their podcast Mollie called it Assassination Chic (though perhaps I heard that elsewhere.  I thought they were being hyperbolic, but after skimming the free previews on their website, I think they were being understated.  I think that failing to win at the polling booths, failing to use the organs of the security and surveillance state to win, they will hope that someone will take matters into their own hands and end Trump.  Sure they will pretend to be forlorn and say, I never meant anyone to do THAT, but it will be a lie.  These are the people who tried to blame Gabby Giffords’ shooting on Sarah Palin because she “put a target” on Giffords’ seat.  They regularly use political violence to get what they want politically and what is assassination but just a slight step up of political violence.

    • #22
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Read this to be up-to-date:

    The FISA 702  is made to appear that it makes sense and is necessary now that our country is filled with an unknown number of questionable parties since our borders are uncontrolled and open to entry by unlimited numbers of illegal entrants from all over the world. Is there more than one single reason to do this? That reason must be the destruction of America. I just don’t believe those illegals are who the FISA-702 warrants are directed towards.

    • #23
  24. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    which is the point of the entire exercise.

    From the beginning, by whom? Names please.

    You have to go back a fairly long way. One example was Lois Lerner. Do you think she was directed by a political appointee to go after the TEA Party? Or did she hear the rhetoric against it from President Obama and decide that she could help the country out by stopping them via extreme scrutiny by the IRS? There wasn’t an email anywhere, or a PPT slide, or anything because “Can someone rid me of this troublesome Priest” is all that was required. Now we see The Atlantic release an entire issue on how a second Trump term would spell the death of the US. Here is a sampling from their home page:

    An excerpt from Mr Goldberg’s “A Warning”:

    I did not understand how so many ostensibly patriotic voters could subsequently embrace Trump, but mainly I couldn’t understand his soul sickness: How does a person come to such a rotten, depraved thought?

    Or this one about how Trump wants a military loyal to him as opposed to the Constitution

    If donald trump wins the next election, he will attempt to turn the men and women of the United States armed forces into praetorians loyal not to the Constitution, but only to him. This project will likely be among his administration’s highest priorities.

    What is the purpose of such articles? It is to give cover and credence to the members of the gov’t, and the military that when they are asked to break the law, violate their oaths, or bend their ethics, it is in a just cause…stopping Trump. He is such a threat to the US that ANYTHING is justified in stopping him. When I heard Mollie and David talking about this on their podcast Mollie called it Assassination Chic (though perhaps I heard that elsewhere. I thought they were being hyperbolic, but after skimming the free previews on their website, I think they were being understated. I think that failing to win at the polling booths, failing to use the organs of the security and surveillance state to win, they will hope that someone will take matters into their own hands and end Trump. Sure they will pretend to be forlorn and say, I never meant anyone to do THAT, but it will be a lie. These are the people who tried to blame Gabby Giffords’ shooting on Sarah Palin because she “put a target” on Giffords’ seat. They regularly use political violence to get what they want politically and what is assassination but just a slight step up of political violence.

    How about Robert Kagan’s recent article in the Washington Post insisting that another Trump term must not be allowed?

    • #24
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    which is the point of the entire exercise.

    From the beginning, by whom? Names please.

    You have to go back a fairly long way. One example was Lois Lerner. Do you think she was directed by a political appointee to go after the TEA Party? Or did she hear the rhetoric against it from President Obama and decide that she could help the country out by stopping them via extreme scrutiny by the IRS? There wasn’t an email anywhere, or a PPT slide, or anything because “Can someone rid me of this troublesome Priest” is all that was required.

    That is so easy to understand about much of this, I don’t get the people who seem to think there must be a Leftist HQ Central or something sending out specific, traceable orders.

    • #25
  26. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    namlliT noD (View Comment):
    But taking as many losses as possible is exactly how you got Trump.

    Well, the GOP did win…they just rarely executed on the goals of the people who elected them.

    The GOP didn’t win much…

    Romney didn’t win in 2012, even though Obama had failed.

    McCain didn’t win in 2008, going against a guy from Kenya who never had a job before.

    GWB won in 2004 because we were in a war and the Dems had nothing to offer, but he barely, barely won in 2000, and then didn’t get the popular vote.

    Dole didn’t win in 1996.

    GHWB didn’t win in 1992.

    Romney and McCain appeared all the world to lose intentionally, as if someone were paying them to throw the fight.  Which is exactly how you got Trump.

    • #26
  27. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    which is the point of the entire exercise.

    From the beginning, by whom? Names please.

    An excerpt from Mr Goldberg’s “A Warning”:

    I did not understand how so many ostensibly patriotic voters could subsequently embrace Trump, but mainly I couldn’t understand his soul sickness: How does a person come to such a rotten, depraved thought?

    Or this one about how Trump wants a military loyal to him as opposed to the Constitution

    If donald trump wins the next election, he will attempt to turn the men and women of the United States armed forces into praetorians loyal not to the Constitution, but only to him. This project will likely be among his administration’s highest priorities.

    What is the purpose of such articles? It is to give cover and credence to the members of the gov’t, and the military that when they are asked to break the law, violate their oaths, or bend their ethics, it is in a just cause…stopping Trump. He is such a threat to the US that ANYTHING is justified in stopping him. When I heard Mollie and David talking about this on their podcast Mollie called it Assassination Chic (though perhaps I heard that elsewhere. I thought they were being hyperbolic, but after skimming the free previews on their website, I think they were being understated. I think that failing to win at the polling booths, failing to use the organs of the security and surveillance state to win, they will hope that someone will take matters into their own hands and end Trump. Sure they will pretend to be forlorn and say, I never meant anyone to do THAT, but it will be a lie. These are the people who tried to blame Gabby Giffords’ shooting on Sarah Palin because she “put a target” on Giffords’ seat. They regularly use political violence to get what they want politically and what is assassination but just a slight step up of political violence.

    How about Robert Kagan’s recent article in the Washington Post insisting that another Trump term must not be allowed?

    Is that the one with the Julius Caesar/Donald Trump composite image? People are pointing out that connecting those two is giving cover to assassinate Trump. If your opponent is literally Hitler, why wouldn’t you pull out the stops to steal an election? If he still won’t go away, why not use a more permanent solution? 

    • #27
  28. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    How about Robert Kagan’s recent article in the Washington Post insisting that another Trump term must not be allowed?

    I’ve heard about it, but haven’t read it.  It’s just another example though.  They are legion.  Which is the goal.  To make the marginalization of Trump and anyone who supports him to be accepted and even anticipated.

    • #28
  29. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    kedavis (View Comment):
    That is so easy to understand about much of this, I don’t get the people who seem to think there must be a Leftist HQ Central or something sending out specific, traceable orders.

    In a way, that would be easier to deal with and better.  What we have now is a large portion of the gov’t that KNOW that conservatives are bad, even evil, and must be stopped at any cost, and these articles enforce the idea that if one has a chance to stop a monster, one takes it.

    • #29
  30. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    namlliT noD (View Comment):
    But taking as many losses as possible is exactly how you got Trump.

    Well, the GOP did win…they just rarely executed on the goals of the people who elected them.

    The GOP didn’t win much…

    The counter is that from 2008-2016 the Dems lost state legislatures, and governors’ mansions…at the grass roots the GOP was doing just fine…just not at the national level…and it’s not hard to see why.

    Romney didn’t win in 2012, even though Obama had failed.

    McCain didn’t win in 2008, going against a guy from Kenya who never had a job before.

    Romney was close, but the media (like Candy Crowley), Superstorm Sandy, and Romney’s failure are organizing his GotV effort cost him.  He should have won but didn’t.

    GHWB didn’t win in 1992.

    After 12 years of being in the WH, such a change isn’t unusual.

    Romney and McCain appeared all the world to lose intentionally, as if someone were paying them to throw the fight. Which is exactly how you got Trump.

    Romney never got the support of many “base” conservatives.  he was portrayed as “weird” by the media, and way too many on the right stayed home on election day.  They ended up ensuring that Obama won.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.