[American Thinker] In the wake of Donald Trump's election as our next President, much has been made of the GOP's need to unite. I agree with this sentiment. However, I humbly suggest to those Republicans, including Trump who led the successful campaign to retake our country, that while we must unite and even forgive our wayward rank-and-file GOP brethren who chose not to support our efforts, we must never forget those who engaged in outright acts of treachery that jeopardized our cause and our nation's future.
First, I must make clear I am not referring to every Republican who made a personal decision not to support Trump. I am sure that there are registered voters in every election cycle who quietly choose, for personal reasons, not to support their party's nominee. As American voters, we must all act according to the dictates of our consciences.
Rather, I am referring to those Republicans who had such a vested interest (emotional, financial, or otherwise) in maintaining the status quo, maintaining the same stale policies that had long served their personal and business interests at the expense of the Republican electorate and their country, that they poured significant time and energy into derailing the GOP nominee and thwarting the will of the Republican voters who supported him.
We must not forget Jamie Weinstein, a "conservative" editor at Dailycaller.com who advocated a "negotiated Republican surrender" to Hillary Clinton. Weinstein went so far as to publicly urge his fellow Republicans to vote Democrat.
We must not forget Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, and the majority of contributors and editors at the National Review, which posted multiple anti-Trump articles on a daily basis, even dedicating one entire issue to attacking Trump. Williamson became so unhinged at one point that he characterized white-working class communities that supported Trump as "morally indefensible" and wrong to blame their troubles on our nation's illegal immigration problem and policies that have proven harmful to the working class. In Williams's judgment, these white working-class communities had "failed themselves" and "deserve to die."
Following Trump's victory, and a catastrophic loss of subscribers, the National Review has since tempered its message. The staff continue to attack Trump, but now they take the occasional break to give our president-elect "sound conservative advice." Namely, they have advised Trump to abandon the positions that got him elected, to appoint the same stale establishment GOP figures who have repeatedly failed to stand up to Obama for eight years, and to adopt the same stale establishment policies that cost us the White House in 2008.
But National Review has nothing on Bill Kristol and his Weekly Standard. Kristol didn't just criticize Trump or write scathing articles attacking the campaign; Kristol orchestrated a massive search for a third-party candidate to run in the general election. He met with prospective candidates and even tried to line up financial backing for a third-party run. Kristol acknowledged that this third-party candidate had no realistic chance to win but expressed the hope that the candidate would take enough votes away from Trump to keep him from getting elected. More awaits.
#1
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing within the same party about politics, nor acting on their convictions based on the information available at the time. To the contrary, I think it is dangerous to shut down and shout down voices of dissent -- that's what the Social Justice Warriors on the left do until a Donald Trump steps forward and defeats their pre-crowned candidate, with coattails that sweep most of the country of Democratic representation.
I have a problem with people staging marches and riots when the vote didn't go their way. And I have a problem with people watching subsequent events unfold, but not modifying their opinions in the face of actual evidence. On the other hand, while we are now seeing the kind of influence Mr. Trump is willing and able to wield as president-in-waiting, since he has not yet been sworn in we do not know if he will be able to live up to that promise as president. But even a majority of Democrats, in a recent poll, hope he will be successful, so there's that in opposition to the posturing in the news and on social media.
Those pundits and politicians who roared the loudest against Mr. Trump now have to deal with rescuing themselves from irrelevance. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed by offering analyses useful to potential readers, or if they will realize they have already unintentially retired. I accepted the National Review's offer of a free one-year subscription, which pops up every time one clicks on one of their articles; I shall be watching this experiment with interest.
[Guardian] As I write, president-elect Donald Trump ‐ soon to become the most powerful individual on Earth ‐ is having a tantrum on his Twitter feed. Losing the popular vote can have devastating consequences for a bigoted plutocrat’s ego, and accusations that Vladimir Putin’s regime intervened to his advantage are getting him down. "The ’intelligence’ briefing on so-called ’Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday," he claims (falsely, apparently), "perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"
Did Putin intervene in the US election? It is entirely plausible, although evidence from the CIA (with its dubious record) and the FBI needs to be carefully scrutinised, whatever our feelings on Trump. And if the Democratic establishment pin the supposedly unthinkable calamity of Trump’s triumph on a foreign power, they will fail to learn the real lessons behind their defeat.
That doesn’t mean alleged interference by the Russian regime shouldn’t be taken seriously. Putin heads a hard-right, kleptocratic, authoritarian government that persecutes LGBT people, waged a murderous war in Chechnya, and has committed terrible crimes in Syria in alliance with Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship. It is a pin-up for populist rightwingers across the west, from Trump to Ukip, from France’s Front National to Austria’s Freedom party. Its undemocratic manoeuvres should be scrutinised and condemned.
But while Americans feel justifiably angry at alleged interference with their political process, they have also been handed a mirror, and the reflection should disturb them. Couldn't find a mirror, please accept this old photo of Mugabe and friend.
#2
Precisely gorb, and the Guardian making such a claim is particularly galling. Of course looking down upon the colonies has long been a popular pastime, at least until you need arms and reinforcements.
#4
I thought it was the same exact pole numbers the networks and radio used for everything no matter what that never differed or changed?!? Good job bad job high liking low liking what crap!
[Zero Hedge] The rising hysteria about Russia is best understood as fulfilling two needs for Official Washington: the Military Industrial Complex’s transitioning from the "war on terror" to a more lucrative "new cold war" ‐ and blunting the threat that a President Trump poses to the neoconservative/liberal-interventionist foreign-policy establishment.
By hyping the Russian "threat," the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks, who include much of the mainstream U.S. news media, can guarantee bigger military budgets from Congress. The hype also sets in motion a blocking maneuver to impinge on any significant change in direction for U.S. foreign policy under Trump.
‐ From the post: Who Benefits from War with Russia?
The following will probably be one of the most important articles I’ve ever written. After spending some time watching the recently concluded intelligence briefing to the U.S. Senate, I’ve concluded it to be one of the most disturbing and ominous things I can remember. I have several takeaways from what I saw, and none of them are good.
Before I get started, I want to remind you of something I wrote last summer in the piece, Japanese Government Shifts Further Toward Authoritarianism and Militarism.
One of the most discomforting aspects of Neil Howe and William Strauss’ seminal work on generational cycles, The Fourth Turning (1997), is the fact that as far as American history is concerned, they all climax and end with massive wars.
To be more specific, the first "fourth turning" in American history culminated with the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the second culminated with the Civil War (1861-1865), while the third ended with the bloodiest war in world history, World War II (1939-1945). The number of years between the end of the Revolutionary War and the start of the Civil War was 78 years, and the number of years between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II was 74 years (76 years if you use America’s entry into the war as your starting date). Therefore, if Howe & Strauss’ theory holds any water, and I think it does, we’re due for a major conflict somewhere around 75 years from the end of World War II. That brings us to 2020.
The more I look around, the more signs appear everywhere that the world is headed into another major conflict. From an unnecessary resurgence of a Cold War with Russia, to increased tensions in the South China Sea and complete chaos and destruction in the Middle East, the world is a gigantic tinderbox. All it will take to transform these already existing conflict zones into a major conflagration is another severe global economic downturn, something I fully expect to happen within the next 1-2 years. Frighteningly, this puts on a perfect collision course with the 2020 area.
#7
An effective facilitator uses lots of butcher paper and permits the audience to sort out the facts. History might indicate the common man, soldier, or village priest is seldom responsible for starting wars. That leaves only a few others who might ultimately be held to account.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Guardian] As I write, president-elect Donald Trump ‐ soon to become the most powerful individual on Earth ‐ is having a tantrum on his Twitter feed. Losing the popular vote can have devastating consequences for a bigoted plutocrat’s ego, and accusations that Vladimir Putin’s regime intervened to his advantage are getting him down. "The ’intelligence’ briefing on so-called ’Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday," he claims (falsely, apparently), "perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"
