Here's why a Donald Trump presidency poses a real threat to the American political establishment

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2016-02-14 13:15

Politico headlined a post-debate story this morning: "Trump crosses the 9/11 line"

Yes, he sure did – when he said in last night's debate that the Bush administration's push to go to war in Iraq was based on a false narrative. Here's the statement that no other Republican running for office would dare to make:

"We should have never been in Iraq. They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none."

Trump is referring to President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and others who concocted a lie to get the country to go along with the administration's desire to invade Iraq, the goal being to removie Saddam Hussein and gain control of middle east oil and to make Israel happy. All the details of this and much more will be available to a President Trump, I would imagine.

As president, he may not be willing to keep it hidden as all the other bought-and-paid-for candidates can be “trusted” to do. Trump also compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, saying 9/11 was worse because it was directed at civilians. Does Trump know they lied about Pearl Harbor too, in order to be able to declare war on Japan? Trump is no dummy, and he's also no warmonger, so what we know he must know also. It's just a matter of his judgement as to how much should be said. And this is what the establishment is so frightened about.

Here are some of the exchanges from last night as they were reported online this morning:

From The Hill:

"George Bush made a mistake," the billionaire continued. "Obviously we can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty."

"We should have never been in Iraq.They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none."

From Politico:

Bush: While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. I’m proud of what he did.”

Trump interrupted with the 9-11-related attack, and the room booed.

Asked whether he still supported impeachment, Trump didn’t directly answer, instead railing against the “lies” that in his view led up to the war in Iraq.

“You call it whatever you want,” Trump said. “They lied.”

On Face the Nation with John Dickerson, taped Saturday night after the debate (watch at the link).

Jeb Bush complains that he is "sick and tired of [Trump] going after my family."

As Bush defended his brother's ability to keep the nation safe, Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down. I am not blaming [President Bush], although...the CIA said there was a lot of information that something like that was going to happen.

"Now, could he have done something about it? His CIA knew about things happening... but when Jeb gets up and says, we were safe under his brother, we weren't safe," Trump added.

"I'm just saying he went in there, he thought there were weapons of mass destruction, maybe or maybe he didn't," Trump said. "If he knew that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and if he used that as an excuse to go in and try to make up for some sins for previous years then it would be a lie."

He was still harsh about Bush's decision to push for the war in Iraq, saying it was a "disaster" that may lead to "the destruction of Europe" because of migrants fleeing the region.

Category 

US elections

Comments

Before last night, when I said I couldn't support Trump if he won the nomination, friends said, "Oh, we can make the best of it." Not now.

 The lines are being drawn.

Eric Miller, a prominent Republican activist, Martin County State Committeeman, and former candidate for Florida GOP Chairman, is calling on the state party's vice chairman, Joe Gruters, to step down as co-chairman of Donald Trump's Florida campaign.

Miller wrote to Gruters:

With Progressive elements now in control of leadership across both sides of the aisle, be cautioned that the Republican Party will either be known in history as the vehicle that solidified a National Socialist as President or we will be remembered as the people that restored our great Nation to a Constitutional Republic.

[...]

Joe, I know you well enough to say that you are not the unprincipled shell of a man that Donald Trump is. Nor do you wish to bring harm to the name Republican. However, your position as Florida Co-Chairman of the Donald Trump for President Campaign is doing just that.

[...]

I am respectfully asking that you choose between your office as Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and the position of Florida Co-Chairman with Mr. Donald Trump.

Gruters replied: "I am proud to be the State Co Chairman of Donald Trump here in Florida," and hoped to Make America Great Again.

Read entire story here

Eric Miller is with the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is a free market & less government group within the Republican Party. People like them are going in exactly the wrong direction. The "principled conservatism" that they push is exactly why Romney failed to win the White working-class vote outside of the South and lost the election in 2012.
 
It's not surprising that somebody of that political stripe resorts to moral-demonization rhetoric. Libertarianism is an ideology of morally straitjacketed people.
 
The same kind of people is already raising a howl in anticipation that Trump might exploit the precedents that Obama has set, in using executive orders, to set things aright.
 
The whole notion of restoring the Constitution to what the founders intended is absurd. The 14th Amendment, which radically changed the meaning of the document, would have to be repealed first.

I think Eric Miller wanted to call Trump a Nazi but thought better of it, so used National Socialist instead. It sounds really odd to hear Trump called that -- but I expect there will be more of it before November. How will he react to it. I wonder?

As to the 14th Amendment, he's said nothing has to be changed in the Constitution -- it's just a matter of re-interpreting it where needed.

Okay I think you're changing subjects in your second paragraph. Trump may have said that abolishing birthright-citizenship doesn't require changing the Constitution, but I did not say a word about Trump or what he wants to do. I don't think I've ever heard Trump talk about "restoring the Constitution."
 
I was consistently referring to Eric Miller and his ilk. This type of conservatard loves to talk about "original intent" and what the Founders intended with the Constitution, seeming oblivious or ignorant to the fact that what the Founders intended was destroyed when the 14th Amendment was passed. They are advocating a "return" to a state of affairs that has not existed for 150 years!
 
Trump is much more pragmatic than that lot. 
 
I understand why Trump thinks that he can do something about birthright citizenship without changing the Constitution, but I think that he is probably wrong, because the simplest and most obvious interpretation of the 14th Amendment supports birthright citizenship. Even if Trump manages to get around that, we won't be in the clear on this issue until the Constitution is fixed so that it does not say that anyone born here is a citizen.

So you think going back to the Constitution is absurd. Really ? You think the principles this Country is founded upon are absurd ! Okay
 
The 14th & 15th Amendments were passed under conditions that totally violate those very Constitutional principles. Namely, a government based upon the principle of self governess. WE THE PEOPLE is how the Constitution begin written in bold letters to emphsize the point.
 
The Southern States were forced by the Radical Republicans to pass those two amendments before they would be admitted back into the Union.
 
Hell the people of the North didn't want negroes to become citizens.
 
So it would be just fine with me if they declared those two amendments to be null, void and unconstitutional.

You've proven my point. You want to go back to the way things were 150 years ago. Exactly what I said.
 
Most of the "original intent" Constitutionalist crowd won't say that, though, I think because they know how ridiculous it appears.
 
You would also have to admit that the notion of a Supreme Court justice ruling in accord with original intent (as Scalia supposedly did) is absurd, because that Constitution does not exist anymore. It was a very flawed plan anyway.

I miss understood what you meant.
Now I am the sorry SOB.
You're not opposed to original intent, you're just saying we're to far down the rabbit hole to try to go back to it.
Unforunately you might be right. I often wonder what should we do.

I also don't think that the original 18th century Constitution of the United States is really adequate for an industrial society. It's too much oriented toward individual rights, which makes curbing the destructive tendencies of late capitalism difficult. Lawrence Dennis refers to this in The Coming American Fascism.
 
If we had continued to be primarily a land of yeoman farmers as Thomas Jefferson wanted, it would be a different matter. But even for preserving that you need the intervention of the government, as occurred under Adolf Hitler.

No, wait, I must be confused.  Bolshie Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and every one loves him.  Trump is a National Socialist (unproven) and everyone is supposed to hate him.  Hate him for telling the same 'truths' that came out in the investigations and the news?  Hate him for reminding people of accepted facts?  For pointing out the truth? There are days when I can't stop laughing for the tears.  This is what happens when the text books get dumbed down for the subhuman animals government idiots keep as chained pets. 
 
Sanders is the consumate shylock. The rat is so obviously text book example for the very type of born in the blood vileness Herr Hitler warned us all of.  

I suspect maybe he's calling Trump a National Socialist because The Donald is not only an 'Evil Racist', he also seems to be trashing the economic rationalist ideology the Republicans have made sacrosanct in their party. Supporting punitive high import tariffs on US companies to force them to keep jobs and business operations on US soil (as Trump does) is generally regarded as a nationalist economic approach. Mainstream politicians all over the West abandoned this rational, patriotic fiscalism years ago, since while it helped the little guy (i.e. us) it really screwed over elite scumbags in their quest to keep eternally raising their profit margins. So I can see why a Republican shill might try to tar that as 'National Socialist', though I doubt any real nationalists think it's entirely accurate (or would think it a bad thing anyway even if it was).
 
I watched this debate TWICE in the last 24hrs, jaw hanging the entire time. It was beautiful watching those pigs thrash around on stage bleeding while Trump stood there, calmly mauling them and sacrificing their sacred cows of Iraq & WMDs! The planted shills in the audience actually BOOED him when he said he lost friends in 9/11! Incredible. The establishment is running scared. Got my fingers crossed for Trump!

I agree, Nik, that the operative word is Nationalist. Trump has been accused of gaining his support as a Populist and Nationalist. Or maybe it was his campaign manager who used those words ... which makes it even better. And the world knows how Hitler turned Germany around in a short time - it was called a miracle. Will we see the same thing for America?

I believe he will get the nomination, because the Trump Train is picking up speed with very few if any obstacles, and then we will see how far they go in trying to stop him.

Add new comment