The latest attack in Nice does have me a bit down. I’ve been there – it is a beautiful city. But, still, the main thing about it is the thing everyone refuses to mention: we have terrorism because various State and quasi-State actors support the terrorist groups. Our problem lies in Tehran and various Arabian States. Until we confront that, we won’t get anywhere. Bombing a few ISIS goons here and there doesn’t do a thing. Even if we managed to destroy ISIS as much as we destroyed al-Qaeda in Iraq, it won’t do any good…as long as there are immune people out there who can fund, supply and inspire the terrorists, it just goes on and on.
#NeverTrump played it’s last trick in the GOP Rules Committee and lost. This was entirely expected – #NeverTrump and #DumpTrump never had a chance as long as no credible alternative candidate declared him or herself. As much as Trump is mistrusted, you can’t beat something with nothing. If even Romney had stood forth as an alternative, the anti-Trump forces would at least have someone to coalesce around. They didn’t – word is there was a big #DumpTrump conference call last week and while all sorts of strategies were proposed to derail Trump, the people couldn’t even settle on one alternative candidate. I hate to say this – oh, heck; I don’t hate to say it…it needs to be said; tired of all this making nice-nice – but we’re dealing with very unserious people. And this is why Trump may yet win – no one is taking him seriously. He’s not a clown (though he is clownish) and he’s not Hitler II…he’s a demagogue of the highest order and he’s determined to be President. We needed someone who was just as determined and who could out-demagogue him. Some one who would have rhetorically kicked him in the nuts. But doing that would have required a complete rejection of the status-quo; a declared war against this rotten system we’ve got. No one wanted to. It wasn’t “nice”. The MSMers would have tut-tutted! And so Trump got the nomination – because he at least spoke to the disgust people have with things as they are. And he’s going to keep speaking to that as Nice and other such happens again and again from now to November.
This is the real world, folks – things actually happen (as some people in Nice could tell you). Unless you’re willing to deal with the concrete realities of how things are, you’re just spinning your wheels and wasting everyone’s time.
A bit of happy news for you – Rubio looks solid for re-election in Florida. So do other GOPers running for re-election in swing States. If we do get President Hillary – a likely event – then at least we’ve got a very good chance of saddling her with a GOP Congress (FWIW and YMMV).
If you’ve forgotten what a patriotic American is like, Senator Scott (R-SC) provides a reminder.
From Glenn Reynolds:
SOMETHING THAT’S BEEN LARGELY OVERLOOKED IN ALL THE RACIAL POSTURING: The cop who shot Philando Castile was a Latino named Jeronimo Yanez. But for our “racial justice” crowd, it’s always 1963 — but a 1963 in which Bull Connor is a Republican instead of the Democratic National Committeeman he actually was.
And keep this in mind as you wonder why people seem to unable to see the truth:
It has been discovered that with a dull urban population, all formed under a mechanical system of State education, a suggestion or command, however senseless and unreasoned, will be obeyed if it be sufficiently repeated. – Hilaire Belloc.
And what we’re up against:
We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles. – Hilaire Belloc
I simply cannot understand so much of what I read and hear.
“(Kendal Unruh) encountered overwhelming opposition from delegates arguing that it would be unthinkable for the party to abandon Trump after he overwhelmingly won GOP primaries and caucuses and garnered more than 13 million votes.
“You want to ignore what is really the grassroots, which is millions and millions and millions of voters who voted for Donald Trump,” said Stephen Munisteri, a delegate and leading GOP figure from Texas.”
So we have delegates arguing that Trump “overwhelmingly won GOP primaries…” Yet he did not. This is simply a misstatement, what many of us would go so far as to call a lie. He won by slim margins only over the person in second place, never over all the combined votes against him, in many states, some which had allowed Democrats to vote, and then when he had driven off so many of the opposition not by winning in the arena of qualifications and ideas but by making the discourse so slimy and disgusting that they refused to remain in it he won by slightly bigger margins.
Only a thoroughly dishonest, win-at-any-cost partisan could refer to this as an “overwhelming” win.
Yes, he “..garnered more than 13 million votes…” What he did NOT “garner” was the more than 30 million votes against him.
So, to set Mr. Munisteri straight, what we are really ignoring is the true grassroots of the overwhelming MAJORITY of voters who did not want Trump, do not want Trump, and who are having their voices silenced.
And you say “#NeverTrump and #DumpTrump never had a chance as long as no credible alternative candidate declared him or herself.” To paraphrase, delegates lacked the intellect to simply change the nomination process back to what it had been before, to confirm what many lawyers say it still is even though there was a one-time amendment to the rules in 1976, if they don’t have a face in front of them to focus on. Well, out here on the plains of Colorado I can think of several people who did enter the race who would no doubt be happy to be nominated. I can think of a couple others who didn’t run. Why would it have been necessary for any of them to step up before the Rules Committee even voted? That would have dragged the Rules Committee into a catfight between two possible candidates, it would have made it personal, and it would have meant that Identity Politics rule even at that level of party legislation.
The cleanest path to a reasonable convention that allows everyone to have a voice was to verify the old rules, and then go to the floor and let people be put forth as potential nominees.
What I am seeing is not just the rise of an unprincipled lying demagogue to the leadership of a once-proud party, who may even rise farther to the highest office in the land. That is disgusting enough. What bothers me even more is the horde of equally unprincipled lying demagogue-lovers who shamelessly spread untruths in their efforts to make it all happen.
This convention is the GOP’s last and only hope of surviving as anything even remotely similar to its history, and I am watching it literally flush itself down a toilet. That’s OK, as long as we can still keep the presidency from Hillary—-a tough job, given the laser-sharp focus of her entirely accurate anti-Trump ads. They are brilliant, and they WILL shift the votes of many squishies to her side, because they quite accurately portray Trump as an arrogant, narcissistic fool. And they are just getting started. I’m perfectly happy to be an active part of a movement to develop a new, truly conservative, American political party, or to be an active member of a subversive element of the existing GOP working to purge itself of the “establishment” that is now shoving Trump down our throats.
“And so Trump got the nomination – because he at least spoke to the disgust people have with things as they are. “
I am so sick and tired of hearing this—both parts. We make ourselves open to manipulation when we cheerfully accept falsehoods just because they have been repeated so often they kind of have the ring of fact to them.
Yes, given the recent plunge of the collective GOP head deep into its nether regions, where the view never changes, it does appear that Trump WILL GET the nomination. But why is it so necessary to constantly repeat the false Trump mantra that for some reason he already has? I just don’t understand what is either a compulsion to repeat what he says or an inability to understand the process.
As for the other constantly repeated mantra—-that “….he at least spoke to the disgust people have with things as they are. …” it also false, He was not the only one with that message. He was the only one who got two billion dollars of free air time to talk about it and give the impression that he was the only one, and more to the point he was the only one who presented that message in the crude, lowbrow, carnival barker/WWE style that is evidently the only way to communicate with a growing number of Americans. In a country where a similar message is ignored or dismissed because the speaker “talks like a lawyer”, in a country where we crave spectacle more than substance, we are dooming ourselves to a series of Donald J. Comacho candidates and, probably, presidents.
But we really should stop repeating the wholly false impression that it was not only Trump’s message that got to people but that he was the only one with that message. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. It was always, first and foremost, the delivery of that message that got the mobs standing on their chairs and howling at the moon. It had to be given by someone the masses could relate to, and in this country at this time that means someone who does not come across as smarter than they are, who is clumsy and crude and vulgar, and who is a celebrity with whom they have become familiar because of their penchant for low-class “reality” TV. A calm, intelligent, well educated person with a thoughtful and realistic grasp of the situation, with a deep knowledge of the facts, never had a chance when up against someone who could appeal to people on a more visceral level, and more to the point never made them feel he is smarter or better than they are.
We as a nation no longer strive for improvement, we crave comfort zones. Trump offers some people a comfort zone. They know he runs around on his wife, they know he farts, they know he picks his nose, they know he gets his “news” the same places they do (from the “shows”) and they love the juxtaposition of being able to look up to him for his wealth and down on him for his crudity and vulgarity.
What I object to is the clean-up crew—-those who follow along behind him picking up the droppings and inventing the stories that he appeals to people “because he tells it like it is” and even more offensive that he is the only one with the courage to stand up and “speak to the disgust people have with things as they are.” That is absolute and utter bullshit. No *** here. It is bullshit. What Trump represents is not courage, it is market analysis. He knows what it will take to generate the roars of adulation he needs, and he provides it. And that is as deep as it goes.
It is time to stop repeating the lies. No, as if this date he has not won the nomination. He is not the nominee. And no, he is not and never was the only one who “… spoke to the disgust people have with things as they are…. “
As for Trump picking Pence as his VP running mate—I don’t know if this is an effort to shore up his conservative cred at the convention, where there is still a strong move to nominate someone else no matter how the media are flooded with claims it is all over, where he still has to wait till votes are cast and challenges are addressed, or if he is looking beyond that to the election.
Pence is a good choice for the first scenario. I have been a Pence fan for years, since seeing him speak at CPAC in 2010 and thinking of him as our next rising star. He has stumbled a few times as governor of Indiana—Spook can speak to that better than I—but overall he is a good, solid, smart, competent, charismatic conservative who can also speak in coherent sentences. In other words, an un-Trump.
On the national stage, I’m not sure if two middle aged white guys spouting the same divisive issues they are locked into via the rigid GOP focus on issues instead of on governance can overcome the tsunami of devastating anti-Trump ads just starting to flood the media.
How many of the issues in the GOP platform fall into the arena of Constitutional authority for the President or Congress? So why do we make such a big deal out of them at the national level? Simple self destructive impulses? Being locked into Identity Politics? A need to limit the appeal of conservatism?
Also, note the rapidity of the Clinton response to Pence. Her campaign has obviously spent a huge amount of resources—time, talent, money—to prepare attack ads at everyone likely to be part of a Trump ticket. I wish we had the foresight (“we” being the GOP) to pull that rug out from under the Dems and make all that investment useless, by bringing in someone relatively unexpected.
He has stumbled a few times as governor of Indiana—Spook can speak to that better than I—but overall he is a good, solid, smart, competent, charismatic conservative who can also speak in coherent sentences. In other words, an un-Trump
I was talking with a neighbor yesterday who is a retired factory worker, strong union man, and staunch liberal Democrat. It was right after word had leaked that Pence would be the VP pick, and my neighbor said, “good — at least we get him out of the governor’s office.” I said I thought Pence had been an excellent steward of our tax dollars and asked what he disliked about Pence. He said Pence had destroyed education in Indiana, which kind of caught me off guard. I asked him in what way had he destroyed education, and he said he had cut funding for public schools to the bone. I was pretty sure that wasn’t true, so I did some research. The first few articles I found were by groups like Media Matters, CNN, Indiana State Teachers Assn. and Indiana Democrats, and none of them had a nice word to say about Pence WRT education. Then I came across slightly less biased article.
As I told Amazona in an off-blog email, Pence was a safe choice, but only time will tell if he was a wise choice. He is a good and decent man with no hint of scandal in his life as far as I know — kind of rare in our current political environment. As you note, he has had a few stumbles, particularly the mess he made of RFRA legislation last year, but overall I think he’s been a decent governor. Indiana continues to be the most business-friendly state in the Midwest and in the top 5 in the country. He’s cut taxes while still maintaining a budget surplus, a feat that few other governors have accomplished.
I still think Pence is to appeal more to the GOP at the convention than anything else. I have heard from someone who is on the Rules Committee and without a direct quote I can tell you that this lifelong Republican from a family of lifelong Republicans, who has been approached several times to run for high Republican offices, is thoroughly disgusted by what went on in that committee. The word “corrupt” was mentioned.
I don’t see the GOP getting through this without major damage. It might be a mass migration of conservatives to another party or it might be an internal insurgency, but the Old Guard of the GOP is in the process of sealing its doom, and its support of Trump is taking it down. Even if he wins the election, it is going down. If he loses, the blowback will be extreme. I’m betting on an internal revolt, so we don’t lose seats in Congress.
I think many of the starry-eyed Republicans really do think we are just miffed and will get over it, and that we will soon be as dazzled by the Glory That Is Trump as they are. Many know better but hope that constantly repeating this will convince some of us to mellow our distaste not just of Trump but of them.
Nah. Ain’t gonna happen. Every time the GOP has a chance to mitigate this disaster, instead they double down.
I think Pence is a reassurance to the GOP powers that be that Trump can be contained…and thus it’s ok to open up the check books.
“#NeverTrump played it’s (sic) last trick in the GOP Rules Committee and lost. “
Really? Why was this a “trick” and why was it “its LAST “trick” “?
Do you simply dismiss what I posted a few days ago?
What parts of the following do you dispute, and why?
“Curley Haugland, delegate and national committeeman of North Dakota, has been saying for some time that the delegates are already unbound. In a March 11th letter to the Republican National Committee, he wrote it was only once in history that delegates were actually bound by the rules:
“In 1976, the Ford campaign, afraid of losing “pledged” delegates to Reagan forces and having the strength of delegate numbers needed, forced the adoption of the “Justice Resolution” which amended the convention rules to bind the delegates to cast their convention votes according to the results of binding primaries.“
He explained further, that “the 1980 convention rescinded the Justice Resolution entirely restoring the prohibition of binding.” He adds that the Legal Counsel’s office, specifically Tom Josefiak, opined this:
“One of the important rules changes over the last 50 years has been the unit rule prohibited…that change was made so that an individual delegate can vote his or her conscience. (transcript, RNC Standing Committee on the Rules, January 19, 2006 pp 93-94)””
I mean, I see all sorts of words in these statements that I, at least, think mean something. “…amended the convention rules to bind the delegates…” says to me that an amendment changes the original wording or intent, which tells me that the original wording or intent did NOT bind the delegates to the state votes. If the word “amended” is used improperly, or if I interpret it wrongly, please explain. Then there is “…“the 1980 convention rescinded the Justice Resolution entirely restoring the prohibition of binding.” …” In this sentence I focused on the words “rescinded”, “entirely”, and “restoring the prohibition”. Then there is the excerpt from the transcript of the RNC Standing Committee on the Rules, affirming the rescinding of the temporary amendment a full ten years before the current convention. In the past ten years, has there been a formal rules change to move back to binding delegates? If so, why haven’t we heard about it? Where is it?
If there was already some rule binding delegates to the votes of their states, no amendment (change) would have been necessary. When that amendment (change) was rescinded at the next convention, that means the rules went back to what they had been before the amendment (change) took place. Why is this so confusing?
What I saw with the Rules Committee was an effort to make the whole process as clean and easily understood as possible, so when delegates do not vote according to their state votes the matter will already have been addressed. The effort to derail the legal voting of conscience by using a lot of lies and mumbo jumbo only means that when and if delegates do follow the rules. there will be hysteria and riots and general temper tantrums. Again, every time the GOP has a chance to mitigate the damage of its collective bad decisions, instead it doubles down.
And it could not succeed in its deceit without the complicity of people who simply accept what they are told without examining the facts.
It was their last trick, and they lost because no one stood forth as the alternative candidate. Just about anyone would do – but the anti-Trump forces couldn’t even agree on who it should be…and, of course, those who could have stood up refused to do so. To me, the whole thing was unserious – the reaction of people who were just angry and hurt, but who couldn’t plot a floor fight to save their lives. The great parliamentarians of the past are turning in their graves over this…heck, the people who managed Goldwater’s insurgent campaign (those who have passed on) are turning in their graves. The 1860 GOP was supposed to nominate Seward, or at least Chase, both with experience as Senators and Governors…but the GOPers who knew what was best, knew that neither Seward nor Chase had what was necessary…they had to be scratched; and Lincoln was the man to use to ace them out. You can’t beat something with nothing – and the #DumpTrump people had nothing, other than rage against Trump.
For Cruz, Rubio, et al it has all been about 2020…eyeing that and figuring out how they can keep their street cred with all sides; to challenge Trump meant deliberately alienating Trumpsters for 2020, and they didn’t have the guts to do that. Meanwhile, people like Romney who really had nothing left to lose – in a political sense – didn’t want to get down and dirty and fight the Trump forces.
Trump is a response to the disgust people feel – and none of the other candidates really spoke to that. As I said months ago when Trump refused to fade but before the first primary ballots were cast, the only way to beat Trump is to out-Trump him…because he is Ruling Class to the core. But to out-Trump him, one would have to consciously reject the system as it is. It would take someone who, eschewing Trump’s vulgarity, still went to relentless war against the status quo. Nobody wanted to do that – might alienate Adelson or the Koch brothers if you do that! As if 2016 hasn’t already amply proved that you don’t need to spend a bucket of money to make a splash in politics!
I’m fed up with the whole thing – and especially those who I once considered conservatives who are out there promoting Progressive websites and news outfits simply because they attack Trump. But mostly I disgusted at the lack of simple, intestinal fortitude on the part of those who propose to be our leaders. We’re likely to get Hillary because of this cowardice…but if we don’t get Hillary, then we’re going to get Trump, and thus cement in place the concept that clownish vulgarity is what sells.
“You can’t beat something with nothing – and the #DumpTrump people had nothing, other than rage against Trump.”
That is one of the most insulting statements I have ever seen here, as well as one of the least factual. If you truly believe that the anti-Trump movement has really been nothing more than a pissy wall-kicking temper tantrum, you have not only not been paying much attention, you have totally misconstrued every single thing that has been said about Trump, about the process, and about concerns over his potential candidacy.
There has been a serious effort to give a voice to the well more than half of Republican voters who have had their votes ignored, and to avert a takeover of the Republican process based on lies and bully-boy tactics. To have this referred to as “..nothing, other than rage against Trump” is absolute crap, and profoundly insulting as well as dishonest.
We clearly have very different ideas of the role of the Rules Committee. You seem to think it was to act in place of the entire convention process—find a candidate, name a candidate, take a vote on the candidate. I simply disagree. I see the role of the Committee as one of analyzing the rules of the nomination process, clarifying anything that is not clear, making changes if they are called for, and making sure that the convention can proceed in as orderly a manner as possible. To my way of thinking, even putting up a name would have been a violation of the duties of the Committee. Theoretically, the Rules Committee would not be partisan, or trying to distort the rule to give anyone an advantage.
We saw this duty violated in 1976 when the Committee did act as a partisan agency, amending the rules to allow someone to have an advantage over someone else.
The movement has had so many reasons to be concerned about a Trump candidacy, to claim it has had “nothing—but rage” is outrageous.
I give up. There is no way to have a reasonable dialogue about what is going on when there are bizarre statements like this put forth as part of a discussion.
I didn’t mean it so much as an insult, though – I just didn’t see any real effort to save the day, as it were. A bunch of people did (and do) prefer someone other than Trump, but I never perceived a real, concerted and firm effort to oust him. Perhaps it never could be done, but I don’t think the effort really amounted to much.
As for me, as I said, I’m just disgusted. It’ll be as it will be.
Perhaps it is your perception that it had to be a focused partisan effort that gets you so tangled up. Perhaps the effort is not just to “dump Trump” but to give all the voters a voice and see what happens.
If your sources of “information” are the in-the-bag Complicit Agenda Media, the same sources that have been announcing that Trump IS the nominee, trying to herd the ignorant into believing something that is simply not true, then it might appear that there has been no serious effort to derail the Trump train and its bully-boy advocates. And if you can only accept an effort that is focused not just on having a fair convention but on replacing Trump with a specific someone else then maybe it does seem a little vague.
When you use terms like “oust” you are accepting the idea that he is there TO “oust”. He is not. He is there as only one of many people interested in being the nominee, albeit the one with the most votes in the primaries.. The nomination is not his. It is not his to have “stolen” from him. He is not in a position to be “ousted”.
I have to hand it to the media—they have done their job well. They have promoted Trump, they have dismissed all his opponents, and they have fed a gullible public the lie that he has “won” the nomination, that people are trying to “steal” it from him, that he has a legal right to the nomination, and so on. Millions of people have been herded like sheep into a perception created and held up by intense media efforts.
What these people do not realize is that once we are stuck with the gilded toad they have chosen for us, they will turn on him in a heartbeat and gleefully join in the bloodletting as he is destroyed by their masters. Attacking the effort to give Republicans a choice merely helps this process along.
This is an email I sent to people in an off-blog discussion group.
Carl Paladino, New York co-chair to Donald Trump’s campaign and a former gubernatorial candidate, sent an angry email at one anti-Trump delegate earlier this week, saying she should be “hung for treason” for her opposition to the presumptive Republican nominee.
Paladino sent the email to Stefani Williams, a delegate in Utah, writing, “You should be hung for treason Stefani. There will not be a Republican Party if you attempt to replace Trump. I’ll be in your face in Cleveland.”
This hit me on so many levels, as so many different yet related examples of the disintegration of this country.
First, being a Grammar and Spelling Nazi, I recoiled at the use of the phrase “hung”. I see this as another example of the failures of our pathetic “education” system. The correct word, for hanging someone by the neck to kill him or her, is “hanged”. I learned that in about fifth grade, but it evidently is not taught now.
Next comes the revulsion at the evidence of what happens when Identity Politics takes over. In this case, not wanting Donald Trump to be the president is seen as treason against the entire nation. No, Donald Trump is not the United States of America. He is not even an elected official of the United States of America. The extremism of (1) seeing an objection to a potential candidate as “treason” and (2) thinking it should be punishable by death is enough to make the blood run cold. Paladino evidently sees Trump as the nation, and the nation as Trump. When this kind of identification has happened in the past in other nations it has never ended well. And death to opponents is pretty extreme.
Yet none of this seems to be garnering much attention. Any attention, other than a mention in The Blaze.
And then comes the bully-boy intimidation tactic. This is a threat against someone, an effort to scare that person out of acting according to her conscience, political beliefs or belief in the 1st Amendment. It is what we already saw from Trump, when he encouraged violence from his followers, offered to pay their legal fees if they got in trouble for it, and engaged in his own personal campaign of attempted intimidation. He used various tactics and levels of intimidation , ranging from simple name calling to slander and libel to ridicule of spouses or the physical appearance of other people, but it was all part and parcel of a calculated campaign to intimidate the opposition. It continues to this day, as we can see from the threats from ta co-chair of Trump’s campaign. “I’ll be in your face in Cleveland.” Not much different from Trump’s threat to find out where delegates would be staying, though a little more direct.
Then he echoes Trump in the way he tries to evade consequences for what he said.
“What the person was proposing is to encourage violation of the rules of the Republican Party under which Donald Trump rose legally to be the presumptive candidate,” he told the network in an email. “The person is being treacherous to the party in doing so and as such the colloquialism is appropriate.”
We start here with the lies. Voting for someone other than Trump as the nominee is in no way a “violation of the rules of the Republican Party”, and certainly “encouraging” someone to do so is even less an offense. The rules are there, have been cited, have been quoted, and no one has produced any rule stating that any delegate is forced to vote for any prospective nominee. The fact that Trump is, admittedly, only the “presumptive” nominee supports the belief that as of this time he has no official status other than vote-getter in some state primaries.
Then we get to the bizarre concept that any party member is “treacherous to the party” by disagreeing with a direction the party appears to be headed. That alone is enough to brand Paladino as a kook, to be most generous regarding his mental state. I would expand that to “dangerous kook”. But then he goes on, referring to his demand for death by hanging as a mere “colloquialism” and then stating that the statement was still an “appropriate” response to participating in the decision-making process of the GOP. Maybe he didn’t mean “hanged until DEAD”—maybe he meant it as a form or torture stopping short of actual death? I expect that next, once his claim of demanding that a person be hanged was really just a “colloquialism”. A grammatical error that still conveys the belief that someone should be hanged by the neck until dead or otherwise is NOT a “colloquialism”. It is a threat, or a statement of belief that this is an appropriate treatment of someone. What if he had said “should be shot”? Or “Stabbed”? No, this is weasel-wording and does not pass the smell test.
This may sound like a lot of fuss over a simple statement by one man. But the man is co-chair of the Trump campaign, and he is repeating the same themes stated by Trump in the campaign, in addition to spouting a belief that in his opinion disagreeing with Trump as a candidate amounts to “treason”. Taken together, not even considering the lying and evasion of the attempt to whitewash the comment, what Paladino said is an alarming amalgam of ideas that seem to have taken root in much of the American subconscious, ranging from extreme Identity Politics to the acceptance of threats and intimidation as part of our election process to acceptance of threats and intimidation as part of how we deal with political opposition to acceptance of violation of the right to free speech to the conviction that failing to adhere to what some have decreed to be the only acceptable line is or should be punishable by extreme measures including hanging.
I see this, along with other alarming things that have been popping up, as a harbinger of ugly things to come. I am only a casual student of history, but I have seen the evolution of absolute tyranny from beginnings such as these.
And tell me, honestly, do you think Hillary will fail to use this in any of her Trump ads? I can see it now—“Trump campaign staff advocates death penalty for disagreeing with Trump and he’s not even the president. What will they push for if he is elected?”
The death spiral into disaster just keeps getting steeper, and Trump and his bully-boys are still pushing to go faster, while the GOP looks and smiles.
Seriously, does an effort to keep someone whose supporters, and rhetoric, are eerily and disturbingly reminiscent of the brownshirts and Lenin's and Stalin's thugs really seem like nothing more than rage against Trump?
Never has the phrase "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" been so relevant to current events. (And yes, I know it is a paraphrase.) Yet recognizing these things and wanting to avert them is snidely dismissed as nothing but personal animosity toward one person.