Remember yesterday, when I left a few thoughts on the Trump campaign and the GOP’s relationship with Russia?
The primary season culminated with the Trump campaign ensuring that the GOP platform didn’t include weapons aid to Ukraine against continued Russian aggression, while Trump publicly threatened NATO with gutting the Article 5 collective security guarantee. (Let’s remember why NATO was created in the first place, eh?)
The New York Times did an interesting piece this morning on this very issue that makes some very salient points.
As many of you know, WikiLeaks has released thousands of DNC emails obtained by hackers, showing the Democratic Party’s efforts to subvert the Sanders campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton. These stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, have embarrassed Democratic leaders and caused party chairhag Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to resign (only to be rehired by the Clinton campaign – how’s THAT for corruption?)
The release also has intensified discussion of the role of Russian intelligence agencies in disrupting the 2016 campaign.
Proving the source of a cyberattack is notoriously difficult. But researchers have concluded that the national committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies, which were the same attackers behind previous Russian cyberoperations at the White House, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year. And metadata from the released emails suggests that the documents passed through Russian computers. Though a hacker claimed responsibility for giving the emails to WikiLeaks, the same agencies are the prime suspects. Whether the thefts were ordered by Mr. Putin, or just carried out by apparatchiks who thought they might please him, is anyone’s guess.
On Sunday morning, the issue erupted, as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s “This Week” that the emails were leaked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump” citing “experts” but offering no other evidence. Mr. Mook also suggested that the Russians might have good reason to support Mr. Trump: The Republican nominee indicated in an interview with The New York Times last week that he might not back NATO nations if they came under attack from Russia — unless he was first convinced that the countries had made sufficient contributions to the Atlantic alliance.
Now, whether the emails were stolen by the Russians, or not is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of corruption within the Democratic Party that was revealed in those emails. That’s just a red herring by Mook to draw attention away from the fact that the DNC apparently actively tried to sabotage Bernie Sanders and subvert the democratic process.
As corrupt and disgusting as the DNC is, this is a separate issue from the one I discussed briefly yesterday, which is the interesting, and (I assess) dangerous relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia.
This is a revelation that, if true, will have serious repercussions on our foreign policy and our national security interests abroad, especially when coupled with the ass loads of Russian money Paul Manafort has been sucking up from his Putin crony buddies, the Trump/Putin mutual admiration society, and Trump’s promise to gut the Article 5 collective security guarantee.
That scares me.
To corroborate what I wrote yesterday, and to further show that what went on at the RNC convention this week is much bigger than the movement to stop Trump, I would like to give you a write-up from a GOP convention delegate, who was beyond disgusted with the process and with what appears to be blatant dishonesty and fuckery on the part of the RNC establishment in which they blatantly ignored the majority of delegates from 11 states who demanded a roll call vote on the adoption of rules for the convention.
These states have major reservations about the rules package adopted by the Convention Rules Committee the previous week that gave increased power to the RNC and stripped power from the GOP state delegations (per Rule 12). Some in the media, though, have wrongly reported that our aim was to strip Donald Trump of the nomination, but this is simply not the case.
Among the objectionable rules submitted by the Rules Committee was the addition of binding language to Rule 38 of the Standing Rules of the Convention for only the second time since the creation of the Republican Party. The first time was in 1976, but the Ronald Reagan convention of 1980 removed this language.
If we had been successful in forcing a vote on the rules, it is true that this would have opened the door for delegates to vote their conscience (something delegates in the past have been free to do for over 130 years) — but this was just one issue among many.
To force a roll call vote, we had to have a majority of signatures from 7 states per Rules 37-39. As mentioned above, we were successful in gathering sufficient signatures from 11 states: Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Alaska, Washington, Minnesota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Utah, and North Dakota.
After ignoring us when we initially called for a point of order (and had to then yell since the chair wouldn’t turn on our microphones), and then after the chair walked off the stage for several minutes (something unheard of), he then returned and finally let us make a motion for a roll call vote.
He called for a voice vote and allowed the entire convention hall to participate — not just the delegates — and subsequently determined the motion had failed. He then stated that only 9 states had submitted signatures, but that several delegates from three or four states withdrew their support.
He claimed that two additional states had submitted signatures but they didn’t meet some supposed deadline — which is an outright lie since there is nothing in the rules that mentions such a deadline for roll call votes (only for nominations via Rule 40).
We have no way of verifying the claim that delegates withdrew their signatures, or determining from which states this supposedly occurred. We only have the RNC’s word, despite our requests for proof. If three or four states withdrew, that would still leave 7 or 8 states, which was sufficient to require a vote from the entire delegation.
Additionally, the RNC tried to hide the Convention Secretary from us in a nondescript hallway with armed guards standing at the entrance, in an effort to prevent us from delivering the signatures. After two or more hours of trying, we were finally successful in delivering the petitions.
After the RNC and the Trump campaign received the petitions, they tried to intimate and strong-arm delegates who had signed to withdraw their names for the sake of “Party unity.” After the “vote,” we were again harassed and bullied. One delegate from my delegation was even cornered in the women’s’ bathroom by two female Trump supporters who told her she and the entire Utah delegation “should all die.”
This is bigger than Trump, but his supporters brownshirt tactics are certainly not going unnoticed.
So far, he’s shown himself to be ignorant and authoritarian, so I will once again say what I said on social media yesterday in response to a friend’s (not one of the retarded Trump supporters – a good guy) question about whether or not people like me would apologize if Trump does get elected and turns out to be a great president.
Why and to whom, exactly, should I apologize? It is HIS responsibility to EARN my vote by showing me he is qualified. He has not done so in any way, shape, or form. In a job interview it’s the candidate’s job to show me why they are the best for the position. I don’t have to choose someone I don’t like for the position. Same in an election. Trump has shown himself ignorant of economic policy, inept at foreign policy, willing to start trade wars, lacking in knowledge about national security and the military, and willing to infringe on the Bill of Rights.
What, exactly, has he said or done to convince me he’s right for the job? Insult his opponents? Discuss his dick in a nationally televised debate? Threaten trade wars? Promote authoritarian policies? Show his ass in every single discussion about the Constitution?
I’ve got NOTHING to apologize for! He has not earned my vote, and I will NOT give it to him merely because he’s not Hillary.
If he turns out to be a great president, I’ll be happy, and I’ll give him my vote if he runs again. But until then, I will vote for the person who I believe is most qualified for the office. That is neither the statist with the cock, nor the statist with the twat. I do have other choices, contrary to your claim. And I will make that choice.
Now I’m off to an orthopedist appointment. Wish me luck.
In 2012, when the GOP establishment silenced grassroots voices at the RNC national convention and essentially entrenched itself as Lord and Master over those snotty, uppity TEA Partiers and Ron Paul supporters, I told the Republican Party to go to hell.
Not that I was much of a Republican anyway. I identified much more as a libertarian-minded independent, but I also knew my views in many ways matched Republican ones more than Democrats, if you had to look only at major parties.
I did not vote for John McCain in 2008. I did not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. I did not vote for George W. Bush in either 2000 or 2004, even though most of my libertarian-leaning friends fell for his “smaller government,” “more liberty” promises. I did not abhor those men (except for maybe McCain, because he’s just SUCH a dick!), but I never felt confident giving any of them my vote. I have always considered my vote as a sacred duty to give my confidence to the people who I thought were best suited to run this country. My goal was never to win, but to ensure that my vote accurately reflected my views about who was best suited for the most important job in the land.
And yes, it is a job. And the election season is one big job interview, as far as I’m concerned. We, the American People, employ the President and every Congressperson and Senator whom we send to Washington. We pay them to represent us. We pay them to lead us. We certainly do not elect them, their cronies, or their moneyed supporters to impose on us what they think is best, because we’re apparently too stupid to know it ourselves. Many seem to have forgotten this, and base their votes on who can win or who is less terrible.
(At this point, I will inform the readers that I’m not engaging in debates with you about “throwing away” my vote, or “supporting Hillary” if I cast a vote for the third party. This debate has been rehashed in numerous discussions in numerous posts, both here and on social media. I’m not going to repeat it. So if you come here angling for a debate, screaming how I’m giving away the election to Hillary Clinton, or trying to convince me to vote for the Hairy Hemorrhoid™, save your energy. That’s not what this post is about anyway. I’m just providing some background and context.)
Mitt Romney lost in 2012. I cannot definitively say whether it was because of the “47 percent” or the “binders full of women” remarks that were so successfully exploited by the Obama campaign, or whether it was scores of Republican voters who, tired of holding their noses, were even more put off by the shenanigans of the 2012 convention. I know that couldn’t have helped.
I also know that the GOP has learned exactly dick since the last convention.
The RNC establishment, working with the Trump campaign, quashed the “Free the Delegates” movement with a voice vote, ignoring calls for a roll call vote. A group of “Never Trump” supporters sought to unbind delegates and felt they secured enough signatures to force a roll-call vote on the party rules, which essentially centralized decision making in the RNC. Those delegates were also joined by those looking to decentralize said power after the 2012 debacle and encourage states to restrict primaries to registered Republicans, since the Republican nominee should logically be decided by… well… Republicans. Party members should decide who their candidate will be, not Democrats, many of whom I have personally seen admit they cast votes in open primaries for Trump to ensure the weakest candidate to challenge their Democratic nominee. That tactic isn’t new, and it works. An effort to ensure that only Republicans are able to choose their nominees was disingenuously dismissed with a voice vote, which many who were present say leaned in favor of the “Free the Delegates” movement.
Make no mistake, people. The grassroots were once again silenced by the establishment. The petty, pathetic tyrants Trump promised to challenge, banded together with his campaign to ensure victory and to silence real conservative opposition – to silence the very grassroots who supported the presumptive nominee in hopes of having their voices finally heard.
Gary Emineth, the former North Dakota GOP chairman who joined the Trump-RNC joint finance committee earlier month, says he was disgusted by the floor vote and immediately texted his resignation to Priebus.
Emineth says he’s furious the campaign and RNC worked in tandem to keep delegates from voting their conscience.
“I was on the Trump finance committee and I just resigned because that bully tactic is absurd,” Emineth said. “I just texted them right now. Why can’t the people be heard? I’ve been texting Reince for 10 minutes. He said we didn’t have the votes. We had 10, 11 states. They peeled people back. They were calling delegations asking people to step off the committee. You don’t do this in America. You do this in other countries.”
After being denied the vote, most of the delegation from Colorado walked off the floor in protest, leaving behind rows of empty seats, and reportedly former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli tossed his credentials to the stage in disgust and walked off.
The Trump supporters will crow that this is proof positive that their grassroots conservative voices are finally being heard by the establishment. In fact, the opposite is true. I fully agree with this editorial.
The rules changes conservatives sought today were not anti-Trump. In actuality they were pro-Trump’s message of not encouraging a “rigged” system and Trump supporters should be livid. The rules adopted today increase the power of the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, lessen the voice of grassroots republicans, and further allow the establishment to rig the system.
The effort to return power to the grassroots did not start today, or even this year. Conservative members of the Rules committee have long tried to change rules that limit the involvement of the grassroots in the party. With a large portion of anti-establishment delegates in the hall, conservatives finally saw their chance to affect real change. They were thwarted by the establishment who convinced Trump delegates that this was an effort to steal the election from Trump.
Over time the rules of the Republican Party have consolidated more power in the RNC Chairman and his hand-picked committee heads. This is especially true with Rule 12, which Mitt Romney allies pushed through in the 2012 convention. Rule 12 allows RNC rules to be modified by the members of the RNC rather than the quadrennial convention. This takes away significant power from the grassroots, acts as an excuse for rushing rules committee meetings, and shifts power for rule making away from the grassroots to the RNC itself, albeit with a high ¾ member bar.
The writer is correct. This isn’t new. The 2012 RNC fiasco took place long before this year’s primary season, and the fact that a Trump supporter and finance committee member recognized this stunt for what it is – an effort to further consolidate power within the RNC and silence the grassroots ought to tell you something. Maybe you should listen, because the GOP establishment certainly will not.
You know, I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. Yeah, I know, you’re all shocked by this. But while I find the Hairy Hemorrhoid™ about as appealing a presidential candidate as the hobo who hangs out at the bus stop near my house and mutters incoherently to himself, there’s a part of me that’s pretty appalled at the level of discourse regarding this year’s elections. The hysterical rhetoric, the violent protests, the threats… what the hell?
I’ve generally kept my criticisms of all the candidates to the issues. Yes, I have my favorite moniker for Trump, but again, for me it’s about the issues. I don’t engage in emotionalist dumbshittery that’s not based in any kind of fact. That’s not the way I operate.
Not so with certain celebutards who are trying to claw their way out of irrelevancy. Not satisfied with the first time their career swirled the shitter after they insulted the President of the United States during what is supposed to be a fun event – a concert – the Dixie Chicks are at it again.
This was apparently on the screen during their song “Goodbye Earl.”
No, really. A song about a victim of domestic violence who, along with her best friend, finally kills her abusive husband after he “walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care,” had a photo of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee with childish horns drawn on it while they played said song at a concert.
This is the height of stupid. Trump may be a boor, a narcissist, a clueless demagogue who would embarrass this country on the national stage, and a complete ignorant when it comes to policy, but a violent wife abuser? Is that what the accusation is supposed to mean?
No, in a classless attempt at reviving their hasbeenery and shining the spotlight on themselves, the Dixie Chicks poked their pointy little heads out of the trash bin of life to which they had been relegated the last time they tried to make a political statement irrelevant to anything having to do with their music, and stuck their feet right back into their mouths.
They just can’t help themselves. They apparently needed the attention, and thought the quickest, most effective way to get it would be to capitalize on the blazing dumpster fire that is this year’s election season.
I think what they are going to accomplish more than anything is drive more angry voters to Trump. We, as a country, aren’t known for our calm rationality when it comes to our elections. We get angry and sometimes fling poo like angry chimps. In this case, the poo is one Donald J. Trump, and the angry chimps are the voters who are so sick and tired of celebutards and establishment hacks telling them what to do and deciding for them what this country’s political landscape will look like, that they will fling that turd all the way to the voting booth.
I’m embarrassed to admit I actually liked some of the Dixie Chicks’ earlier music. As an AFN disc jockey, I did the country music show, which broadcast Europe-wide and beyond. After I left the Army, I worked for a country music station. It grew on me. But much like with any other celebrity, I’m there for the art, not the witless political commentary.
You want a Trump presidency? This is how you get a Trump presidency! You block the roads to his rallies. You physically assault his supporters, get physically assaulted in retaliation, and draw media attention once again to the Trumpster fire. Instead of a discussion of policy, you stamp your little feet and hurl ad hominems. You irrationally compare Trump to Satan, and childishly draw horns on his photograph at a concert. You piss off an already angry electorate and send them to the polls in droves to vote for the very candidate you’re trying to demonize, because that’s how they roll.
You want to make Trump look more sympathetic? This is how you make Trump look more sympathetic!
Now, back in the bin with you bimbos!
OK, enough is enough. I’ve just about had it with the “you’re either voting for Trump, or you’re for Hillary” douchebaggery, Republicans! Enough!
I’m not voting for him. Period. And tossing false dichotomies at me will not change my mind.
I’ve gone over why Trump is absolutely unqualified and unsuited for the most powerful office in the land – and the world.
I’ve listed numerous reasons why I will never vote for him – everything from his love of force to his lack of knowledge about basic economics and foreign policy, to his flip-floppery on everything from gun rights, to abortion, to the war on terrorism.
And yet, I’m consistently seeing appeals from both Republican friends and from “conservative” pundits to stand with them and vote for Trump, because not to do so would be voting for Hillary.
These appeals range from “Oh, you must support Hillary,” to “You must not care about Supreme Court nominees,” to “Are you wasting your vote on a third party, because if you are, you’re voting for Hillary,” and all sorts of other stupid. If that’s how you’re trying to convince me, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
If you want me to change my mind about Trump, show me how he will make a better president than Hillary Clinton. Show me why I need to give him my vote.
Not being Hillary and not being a Democrat (this week) are not qualifications for President, no matter how hard you try to ram that narrative down my throat! You will not get me to vote for an unqualified, classless, boorish, uninformed lout, who is as leftist and authoritarian as his opponent, merely because he has an “R” behind his name. That’s not how it works.
As I’ve said before, Democrat and Republican are merely brand names. They are vehicles by which the candidates are delivered to us. Ultimately, it’s up to the candidate to prove his suitability for the office, and from what I’ve seen so far, Trump hasn’t even come close for all the reasons I mentioned above.
No, this is not about a protest vote.
I’m not protesting jack shit. I’m not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. I couldn’t give less of a flying rat’s ass about party labels. It’s simply about choosing the best qualified candidate for what is the most important job. And for me, neither one fits.
No, I don’t believe any candidate is perfect.
No, I don’t delude myself into believing that somehow Trump is more qualified to run the country and be the leader of the free world because he’s not Hillary. Not being Hillary is not a qualification.
No, despite his recent acceptable list of whom he would nominate for the Supreme Court, I don’t believe for a moment that a guy who, until a few months ago, thought his leftist sister would make a “phenomenal” SCOTUS nominee, is to be trusted with that decision.
No, a vote for Trump is not in any way better than a vote for Hillary. As a matter of fact, it may be worse, because when that stubborn, antagonistic, puerile dunce fucks up our country with nearly the exact same politics as Hillary, the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves, liberals will screech about the failure of capitalism under a “Republican,” and low-information idiots will fall for it, ushering in an era of even worse, more extremist economic policies.
No, voting third party is not “throwing your vote away.” We are not the fucking Soviet Union! We have options and choices – everything from voting third party to not voting at all. And if more people weren’t chickenshit traitors to their own principles, they would see that there is essentially no difference between the two – no matter what Trump happens to write on social media or his campaign website. His history of flip flopping on issues most important to Republicans should be a big, red flag, but instead Republicans are so terrified of Hillary, that they will cast their vote for a male version of her, only with less experience and knowledge. They are both the same shit sandwich – one with mayo and one with ketchup – but ultimately, it’s still a shit sandwich, and I’m not going to swallow it when some stale roast beef is lying around.
No, a single-payer health care system wouldn’t be any better under Trump than it would be under Hillary.
No, liberal justices coming from leftist with an “R” behind his name are no better than liberal justices coming from a “D.” Perhaps you retards should have considered this before going out and casting your vote out of fear and anger, in an effort to burn down the establishment.
No, authoritarianism is no better under the “R” label than it is under the “D.”
No, I don’t fall for cheap rhetoric.
No, it’s not because I’m bitter that “my guy” lost. I didn’t have a “guy.” Rob was passionate about Cruz, as he wrote a few months ago. I certainly liked Cruz and Rubio better than I liked Trump, but that’s kind of like driving a Yugo in a race against Kosovo Harleys. Hell, I liked Jim Webb better than Trump as well, but that’s quite akin to me choosing that stale roast beef sandwich over the diarrhea, beer, and corn concoction that is Trump.
If you truly feel that Trump would be the lesser of the two evils, go and pull that lever for him. I’m certainly not going to try and change your minds.
If you want me to vote for your guy, you’d better give me a better reason than, “Yeah, we know he’s a liberal. Yeah, we know he helped elect Clinton crony Terry McAwful as governor of Virginia and scores of other leftists with his donations. Yeah, we know he is a demagogue who knows little to nothing about running a country. But he’s better than Hillary, soooooo…”
You want to change my mind, show me why he would be better than Hillary. Show me some concrete proof that a guy who in a Memorial Day speech yesterday – a day when so many people commemorate the loss of their loved ones in military service – saw it fit to screech, “Memorial Day… it’s our day and we have to be very proud of it and we are very proud of it,” and invoked Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech to wonder why the venue wasn’t completely filled with people yearning to see his greatness – is somehow better than his opponent.
Otherwise, I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to shove that bag of syphilitic dicks down my throat.