Home | About | Donate

Private GOP Memo Reveals Trump Victory Would Only Mark the Beginning


Private GOP Memo Reveals Trump Victory Would Only Mark the Beginning

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Despite widespread worries about what a Donald Trump presidency might mean for the United States and the world, a leaked memo sent from the campaign arm for Senate Republicans reveals the party establishment is more than ready to take lessons from the billionaire celebrity's agenda.


Interesting article, and the polar opposite of one that appeared on the front page of the NYT a few days ago, in which the author discusses the building panic in the Republican establishment about the possibility of an actual Trump candidacy. They fear that if Trump gets the nomination, the Republicans will loose the election by a landslide, and take some Senate seats and governors down with him. That's why I'm backing Trump. Go Donald!


This is why the rightwing conservatives win. They are prepared to support whatever candidate wins the nomination no matter who it is.

Progressives on the other hand won't support a progressive because as progressives they have to pretend to some rarefied height of personal purity which no viable candidate could ever achieve.

Republicans vote for the whoever is not a democrat whereas the left divides itself at the outset and watches as lefties tell other lefties not to vote.

Republicans laugh at our pretentiousness. They laugh at our lack of unity. They laugh when later we complain about what the republicans are doing to this country.


Progressives fail to support progressive candidates not because those progressive candidates lack personal purity. Progressives vote instead for what they commonly label "the lesser of two evils"...progressives blink every time.


Orangutang Hair is 'succeeding' because he is the American political equivalent of fast food; and just as damaging long term to the American body politic.


Trump's popularity reflects the unmitigated ignorance of those behind him and the rapacious, rancorous disease that infects the GOP...and the other candidate wannabes reinforce all the negative aspects of their world of politics: anti-women, anti-poor, anti-gays, anti-climate change, anti-choice, anti-government, pro-war, pro-privatization, pro-militarism, pro-business, and pro-self-aggrandizement...and the dismal list goes on and on ad infinitum.


I meant we progressive voters hold ourselves to a rarefied standard of purity to which no candidate could ever match. So we don't support our own because they aren't perfect like somehow we think they should be. We are talking a national election where a candidate needs to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Yet we act like they must be a super progressive (like we pretend to be) in all issues knowing that if they were like that then they would never get elected.

We are vain and willingly sacrifice all the good that might be done by a more progressive candidate because we always end up saying that they aren't progressive enough for us.

THAT is why we never win. We don't support the good and end up having to endure the bad because if it.


Trump is the engine hauling the train full of KRAZY Klown Kandidates! He strikes me as a germaphobe thus not allowing anyone to touch him or his ridiculous comb over...but he might let someone kiss his ring.


No. The reason "progressives" (I presume you mean the Democratic Party) never seem to win is because they viciously attack rather than accommodate or adopt, every person or position the least bit to the left of their highly compromised "moderate" (meaning to the right of Richard Nixon) politics.

In my state there is an onerous tens-of-thousand-signature petition process to get minor parties on the ballot. Should the Greens get the required number of signatures, the Democrats spare no expense - in one case illegally using public funds** to challenge and remove signatures for trivial errors and legibility off the thousands of submitted signature sheets - then they threaten to sue the individual Green candidate for all the expenses. If the Green Candidate does not have a 100% challenge-proof margin of signatures, they must drop out of the race or face personal financial ruin in the face of a lawsuit from the Democrats for all expenses incurred by the signature scouring (the historically Democrat "commonwealth" of Pennsylvania actually allows this. Carl Romanelli the Green who ran for the US Senate against Casey and Santorum stuck to his guns and was ruined by the Democrats and faced much personal hardship. Nader challenged the Democrats odious lawsuit but eventually had to pay out tens of thousands to them.

Now, in contrast, the Republicans have NEVER, does this to their own "spoilers" the so-called "Libertarians". Instead, they adopt the extreme hyper-capitalist political positions of the Libertarians and thereby assuring that few of that inclination will not vote for the Republicans.

So no, the reason the Democrats lose and lose and lose is because they refuse to adopt the popular positions of those to their left and instead attack them savagely. As I wrote in a post a couple days ago, such an idiotic strategy can only be due to:

  1. The Democratic Party has idiots for campaign strategists.

  2. The Democratic Party values the maintenance of the status quo of corporate-capitalist government - by expertly acting out their role as a phony opposition - far more than actually electing their members to Congress or the White House.

I pick No. 2.

** The Rep. Veon "Bosusgate" scandal. The Republicans discovered the illegal use of funds and had a political field day - sending Veon to prison and winning an overwhelming majority of the state General Assembly that persists - leveraged by their subsequent gerrymandering to this day. The Greens - who were the actual target of the Democrats criminal behavior never accrued any benefits from the scandal - in fact, through all the sensational news coverage of the scandal, the Greens, Romanelli or Nader were never mentioned once.


Then why does the Democrat candidate not simply adopt some of the progressive positions to his left? Instead, such positions are usually attacked as the Democrat moves further right. Obama's Rev. Wright incident, and his hostility toward single payer healthcare were classical examples of this. Even more enraging, is when the Democrat refuses to even acknowledge the positions to his or her left even exist! In the case of Sanders, he refuses to even acknowledge the foreign policy, military and Israel policy positions of those to his left - or in a not long ago incident, he savagely attacked, right in his Burlington office, visitors expressing their opposition to the savage bombing of Gaza.


Spare me this crap about the democrats. If I had been talking about the democrats I would have said so. Try to be original instead of co-opting someone else's posts and getting it wrong to serve your ends. You aren't the only one who does this .

I spoke of progressives and the left not of the democrats only the republicans think of the dems as the left. I spoke to US - progressives not classic liberals and moderates. Many dems are conservatives for example but even so by the time the nominations are over...progressives did not support another progressive and end up voting (or not voting at all) for the basically moderate dem.

They could have supported the progressive but they pretend not participating is some sort of political statement which is a crock and a half!

Non participation gave us Reagan and look at where that toehold of oligarchy has brought us.

Professional progressives don't support or help to organize support for progressive candidates and then spend years complaining about how we needed a progressive win.


You know you are an example of why we lose. You go on and on and on about Israel as if Israel is the no. 1 priority of American voters. It's not and it never will be dude. What you want is a candidate that is absolutely pure on this one issue. Why? Because your obsessed with this one issue and think everyone else should be. Get over it,


Do you really think that no one else watched those videos? You are a liar and biased. The person wouldn't let Bernie respond. Bernie asked them to stop shouting and let him answer them but they only wanted to be disruptive. Bernie finally told them to shut up so that he could speak and to you that is savagely attacking them? You phony. It says something about you and your causes to stoop so low. Care to talk about how the mainstream media tries to manipulate people? Like you do? Hypocrite.


Nate Silver says that as of right now, 23% of likely Republican voters will not vote for Trump, if he is the nominee.


I am not familiar with Nate Silver but a cursory peek at what came up after googling his name says that he is a statistician.. do you find that he is accurate?

In any case my point is not the merits of who is their candidate but that they will vote for whomever is the republican candidate.

However this election is an anomaly actually.

An oligarch versus a populist possibly? Biggie that one. Billionaire autocratic royalty versus the working man's guy walking the picket line and walking on protest marches.

However if it becomes Hillary versus Trump then I doubt that 23% figure would hold. It actually could swing either way.
A Trump versus Sanders contest, would see Trump losing many of the more sane conservatives.


How would we know if progressives would support progressive candidates when there haven't been any for major office yet? Howard Dean had a progressive moment, then ran back with his tail between his legs, raising the banner for the better off alone. I'm not talking about some litmus test, or requiring a "perfect" candidate, but my gosh, liberal media spent most of 2015 marketing neoliberal Clinton as a "bold progressive."

By definition, a progressive is someone who promotes progressive -- not regressive -- policies and ideas. It's primarily about our socioeconomic agenda. "Stand in solidarity" to maintain the status quo of the better off alone, the middle class, is anything but progressive. Yet, this is what today's Democrats and liberals promote.Our 20th Century history is an outline of what happens when you implement progressive policies to shrink poverty, and then change your mind and reverse those policies. From FDR to Reagan, the US implemented policies that took us to our height of wealth and productivity. When Reagan was first elected, launching the long "war on the poor," the overall quality of life in the US was rated at #1. By the time Obama was elected, the US had already plunged to #43. It's impossible to save -- much less, to rebuild -- the middle class without shoring up the poor, and we don't wanna.

And face it, an FDR could not be elected today. He would be too far to the left for today's Democrats and liberals. (Did you know that what came to be called AFDC was actually first included in FDR's Social Security Act?) For that matter, Republican President Eisenhower (who helped establish a modern welfare system) was well to the left of today's liberals.


We need to also factor in the Democrats who have only been more deeply alienated by Democrats (and liberals) during the years of this administration. Today's Dems represent and market themselves to a portion of the middle class, and have only more deeply alienated the masses -- the poor, and those who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the country. Should have figured out what we all saw: Clinton/Gore targeted the poor, giving us 8 years of Bush -- elected and re-elected by the middle class.Democrats began 2015 with agreeing to virtually end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled, and agreed to yet ANOTHER benefit freeze in SSI for 2016.


Nate Silver is a very clever guy who studies polls and political statistics.He often turns up stuff that others miss, and has a good track record on predicting outcomes.Of course he makes mistakes sometimes, but he's worth paying attention to. For instance, he says that Trump has less supporters than the Atlanta Braves. Big deal in Atlanta-but not so big nationally.The 23% I refer to are those likely Republican voters who hate Trump, and wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. He also says that if Trump ran against Bernie, Bernie would trounce him. Hillary would mess him up pretty badly too, but the result would not be quite so decisive. He says that he's talking about the situation today, and that in politics, things can change pretty quickly. So no, he's not calling the election this far out.


The art of the heel


I tend to agree. Trump may indeed be the left/ Progressive side's best weapon. Not that I want Trump to be president; he's a sociopathic Brown-Shirt whose ego is bigger than the planet. And if he were elected, I'd pack up and move to freaking Bolivia before I lived in HIS Amerika.