Panicking Mitch McConnell Says GOP Will Help Hillary Beat Trump If He Wins The Nomination

a reply to: DBCowboy

Agreed 100%.

I am not a Trump voter, but I have been telling all of my friends on social media to STFU about the intelligence and mental health of Trump and his supporters. You can't win a rational debate by insulting the people who oppose you.

It fuels them. This applies to both sides.

if we, as a populace, cannot effect change through the ballot box, then it may be time to use the 2nd for one of its purposes, and I would hope at that point the left is as ready to stand with the right to at least oust the problem as the right should be to stand with the left.

This is the scariest thing I've heard anybody say in a long time. If you want a civil war, there are plenty of those going on around the globe. Do you like the way they are going?

Anyone who believes gorilla warfare is a viable solution to get what they want( to force on others,) has issues that go deeper than I ever imagined. If a coup is to be staged, we don't need 'the 2nd' to do it, unless the right is hungrily wanting to use it to kill people they disagree with.

a reply to: angeldoll

Where is you're quote from?

a reply to: maria_stardust



a reply to: Aazadan

Agree. Good summary.

my 2c.... The note has come due on the GOPs debt to the Devil. By taking in and giving political power first to disaffected Dixiecrats, Reagan Democrats and then to their own far right reactionary extremists, and increasingly forcing out party liberals and moderates, the GOP has polarized politics to where we now have the parties for a parliamentary style of govt but not the structure for one. Hence, gridlock will continue.

It may be we will have to live with gridlock, as changing to a parliamentarian system would be too massive to be in the cards. Our system was not originally set up for it.

We've had a Cold Civil War for a while now....

This is what 60 years of fear-mongering in the conservative movement has wrought. This is the end result of a grand paranoia fueled by a vast archipelago of right-wing news sites and think tanks and TV and radio shows lying to you. This is the end a person comes to after imbibing for years the angry shouts and finger-pointing and blaming of everyone else for the slow erosion of living standards and working-class wages and stagnation.

source

And while we were fighting, corporations stepped in and made our elected leaders increasingly beholden to them. More time spent by elected leaders soliciting donations than working on problems.

We the "Little People" are finally mad as hell and want change. Unfortunately, even in the best of political times, pressure to change must start outside of politics, forcing elected leaders hands. This is the worst of political times, so IMO no matter what happens with the GOP (or 3rd or more parties), we're screwed. Too bad we didn't realized we'd been screwed with decades ago. Change might have been easier.

a reply to: desert

I'll be honest ... it looks to me like we're being offered the absolute extreme incarnations of "the two sides" ...

originally posted by: angeldoll

if we, as a populace, cannot effect change through the ballot box, then it may be time to use the 2nd for one of its purposes, and I would hope at that point the left is as ready to stand with the right to at least oust the problem as the right should be to stand with the left.

This is the scariest thing I've heard anybody say in a long time. If you want a civil war, there are plenty of those going on around the globe. Do you like the way they are going?

Anyone who believes gorilla warfare is a viable solution to get what they want( to force on others,) has issues that go deeper than I ever imagined. If a coup is to be staged, we don't need 'the 2nd' to do it, unless the right is hungrily wanting to use it to kill people they disagree with.

This is what the modern day right believes. And they're getting closer to it, look at the groups like Bundy and his two standoffs in the past two years. The far right is at the point that if they don't get what they want they'll openly start killing Americans to get it.

You can even see it here, there was a thread from a member not too long ago claiming to be a gun owner first, christian second, and American third and basically said, to hell with everyone else. Judging by the star count, many people agreed. Another post a couple of months ago was full of posters advocating the outright lynching of legal immigrants and especially Muslims because America is for Americans and not them (these people also felt we should start using nuclear weapons in the Middle East). It's not just fringe sites like this either, mainstream right wing radio has advocated the same. Popular hosts have called for a return to slavery for anyone caught as an illegal, and others have said (to the agreement of a congressman they were interviewing) that the only solution to the Muslim problem is to execute them and introduce them to the real God.

These people want a bloodbath and I don't think they really care who it is they're killing as long as they get to kill someone. People from the Middle East, people from south of the border, political opponents, maybe all three. To say they have gone crazy is an understatement, the only silver lining is that they probably won't win much political representation in 2016.

When are people going to realize the GOP is the conduit for evil!


Nixon in Watergate, Reagan Iran Contra, Bush 911, Iraq.

What in the world do you think the next GOP president will do?


Their either crazy neocons or nuts like Trump


The GOP will be the destruction of this world


of course with help from the democrats

a reply to: Gryphon66

Republicans will be in danger of losing the senate. All that's needed is to
run middle of the road Dems against some key incumbants.

Americans will hate obstructionists.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Have you listened to Mr. Trump?

Do you think his plans, vague as they are, would result in "smaller" government?

He promises to start issuing Executive Orders on Day One.

Because, as he notes, he doesn't need Congress for that.

You do know th eEOs he wants to issue are repealing the Obama ones specifically. If it is a LAw he does have to go to congress.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not sure I understand. ..... I'm taking " the 'absolute extreme incarnations of 'the two sides' " as being Trump and Sanders or Clinton. No?

a reply to: desert

As far as the generic ideologies of the American Right and Left go ... yes, I believe that Trump and Bernie are the two extreme incarnations of those two philosophical frameworks.

And as a leftist, in general, Trump causes the same reaction in me that Sanders does in many fervent right-wingers.

I still contend however, that taking a longer-term view of what this means in American politics, it's not a bad thing. People may start to ask ... "why is it we only have two parties again?"

A very good question, in my mind.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Have you listened to Mr. Trump?

Do you think his plans, vague as they are, would result in "smaller" government?

He promises to start issuing Executive Orders on Day One.

Because, as he notes, he doesn't need Congress for that.

You do know th eEOs he wants to issue are repealing the Obama ones specifically. If it is a LAw he does have to go to congress.

No, I don't "know that" ... if you watched the video, Trump isn't talking about anything real, as usual. How do you know what he "means"? Why not impose a few items on the Trump Agenda while he's at it? Contemplate, for example, if you're aware of the process, how complicated it would be to unravel a command from the Commander in Chief "to stop all Muslims from coming into the country."

It is clear from listening to his speeches that Trump fundamentally doesn't understand the limitations of the powers of the President. I find it ironic that so many Trump supporters have also been the strongest criers against the "Tyrant Obama" ...

To paraphrase the Joker ... "Wait'll they get a load o' Trump ..."

PS: Law ares "repealed" ... not Executive Orders ... they are merely reversed or otherwise nullified.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, gotcha. Thanks. More reply later.

One thing I've heard some Trump supporters declare when confronted by statements of his, "Oh, I don't think he really believes that." or "He's just saying that to get elected. Once he's in office he won't do/act like that." Huh!!?? His supporters excuse him for the very things they say they don't want to see in a politician/establishment candidate?? Now THAT I really don't get.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: diggindirt

That couple of months ago you mentioned; was that before Donald was on Infowars?

Look at how much things have shifted in the last few months! It's stunning, to me anyway.

Forgive me if I don't follow these political campaigns as closely as party members. I honestly don't know if this retreat being reported was before The Donald was on Infowars. I just remembered seeing the piece about how they were claiming they would support the nominee but when I googled it and found it, it actually said "the voters", not the party bigwhigs and moneymen. I do know from watching that they expect slavish devotion to their party as I've heard on many occasions, "He might be a crook but at least he's OUR crook" when defending the lowlife scum they've run for office.
Now, lest anyone think I'm not an equal opportunity basher, I also know that the Dems will throw an honest man of integrity under the bus if he doesn't toe the party line and turn a blind eye to Dem wrong-doing. I saw that very clearly when they turned against Ben Chandler in KY because as Auditor and again as Attorney General he had sent Dems to jail for corruption. That proved to me that they didn't want an honest person in the Governor's office. Well, they got Ernie Fletcher and the Republican brand of corruption. Our Commonwealth is in the shape it's in because of corruption, plain and simple.
Since I'm independent and have no vote in the primaries, I don't really pay as much attention as party members. When all the histrionics are done and the choices are offered, I'll be more interested but I still won't be voting for any major party candidate on a national level. I'm far more concerned with local and state races, the ones where those elected have to look the people they serve in the eye, not hide behind staffers.
My experience shows that if the people are awakened to corruption on a local level and honest people can be convinced to run for office, government can be returned to the people. The revolution must begin at the local level with honest people of integrity who will eschew corruption.
As the founders of this country intended, the most power should lie with the people at the local and state levels. It is much easier to hide corruption in a multi-billion dollar budget than in a multi-million dollar budget.

What has shifted in the last few months?
The Donald was leading the pools in December.
www.msnbc.com...
The Donald was leading the polls in January.
www.cnn.com...
Now he's leading the polls in February.
www.nj.com...


Has he not been leading the polls since he announced? As I said, I haven't watched as carefully as someone who is expected to vote in the primaries so if I'm off base, I apologize. It seems to me as other candidates have dropped out, the numbers have shifted slightly but that would only make sense that when one's favored candidate drops out the support would shift to the one with the highest polling numbers. That's the way the parties play, they want to win the power with THEIR crook and will hold their nose and vote for THEIR crook because of that little donkey or elephant beside their name on the ballot.
(Completely off-topic but do you know why those symbols are there? So the people who can't actually read can see that symbol and vote for the person they've been told to vote for.)

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, gotcha.

Thanks. More reply later.

One thing I've heard some Trump supporters declare when confronted by statements of his, "Oh, I don't think he really believes that." or "He's just saying that to get elected. Once he's in office he won't do/act like that." Huh!!?? His supporters excuse him for the very things they say they don't want to see in a politician/establishment candidate?? Now THAT I really don't get.

Can't help but hear echoes of "This will be our last territorial demand ... "

/shiver

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Reagan Revolution devoured its children. .....plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

So, I gave the idea of the extremes some thought. I'm used to earthquakes out here, and the shaking ones (versus the rolling ones) shake you from side to side; the more violent the quake, the more violent the shaking. Thus, I should not be surprised that this political "earthquake" is causing people to shake out to the extremes. Like "the big one", we were due for it.

Because this country had moved so far to the right, the pull back towards the center had to be greater from the Left. And, yes, Bernie is very Left. But he has always been that way. If Trump had not gotten into the race, would Bernie have run? I wonder. Bernie had always spoken out, but hardly anybody was listening. This time they are. And they like his message.

What I find interesting about Trump is that, depending on what he says, he can spout either left or right. So, what is he?....IMO he's simply a magalomaniac sociopath. Those attracted to him are not attracted necessarily to a message but to his projection of power. He's white (traditional power structure), he has wealth, and he is a bully. His followers want that power to change things, not necessarily a political philosophy.

The GOP is stuck with their authoritarian followers; Ted Cruz was the GOP (religious)authoritarian choice first, until Trump trumped them with his Ultimate Authoritarian. And Trump makes the GOP look like the fools they are. Little wonder McConnell wants to throw Trump and his followers overboard the ship of state.

Shiver me timbers!!

originally posted by: maria_stardust
Surprisingly enough, it's not outside the realm of plausibility for such a conversation to take place.

When you've got the bulk of the GOP throwing their collective support behind a young buck, such as Marco Rubio, as the best alternative to a Trump nomination -- and he's lagging behind in double digits... Well, D.C., you've got yourselves one helluva problem and it sports a bad toupee.

The bulk of the establishment is throwing behind Rubio, and he has yet to win a primary. This Tuesday will be very interesting to watch.

a reply to: angeldoll

I said it.

The context is that if it becomes apparent that the American people cannot effect real change at the ballot box because the political process has been skewed against us - Hillary with the superdelegates against Bernie and Trump or Cruz having the conventions brokered out from under them despite the clear votes of the left and right. Then it should be obvious to both sides that the only way to actually have a real election and honest accounting is to dethrone the power structure at the top.

The only way we do that at that point is to stand together and rebel, really rebel, not just refuse to vote for the anointed candidates.

I am not calling for open revolt at this point. I am not yet convinced that the process is irrevocably skewed, nor do I actually want a revolution because there is no guarantee that we could replace it with anything resembling what we should have afterward. But if we do not have our choices in our hands now ... it may be the only chance we have to put things right, too, and at that point, I would hope that both left and right could agree at least that far.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: angeldoll

Where is you're quote from?

Sorry. Ket & co. She has owned it. See above.

a reply to: ketsuko

The only way we do that at that point is to stand together and rebel, really rebel, not just refuse to vote for the anointed candidates.

I'm thinking sit-ins and protests. "Singing songs and carrying signs". Unarmed. They can fill the jails up with us.
NO VIOLENCE.

We've had threads before asking military and LE whether they would take up arms against American citizens in such an event if ordered to, and they (mostly) said no.

Of course, I remember Kent State, sooo, it would make me a little nervous. If we brought arms, then they would have to also. Killing begets killing. No guns.