Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 15,716
- 27,674
- 2,430
The Coming Split
What should we do when a majority of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him?
The Coming Split › American Greatness
Last week I wrote about Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Trump. My comparison wasn’t between the two men as presidents—though they had some similar personality traits—but between how the two men were…
amgreatness.com
Last week I wrote about Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Trump. My comparison wasn’t between the two men as presidents—though they had some similar personality traits—but between how the two men were treated by the Republican Party. The Republican Party of 1912 decided it would be better off renominating William Howard Taft, even though its voters would have preferred another Roosevelt term. The resulting split ushered in Woodrow Wilson and the first academic globalists, whose bright ideas laid the groundwork for a second world war on the eve of the conclusion of the first.
Of the three men who were candidates in 1912, Taft probably would have made the best president. Though TR took a muscular attitude towards American interests abroad, he eventually decided he had the power to lay claim to gigantic tracts of American land and to regulate the prices of private railroad tickets. His megalomania did substantial damage to individual liberty long before his cousin FDR had similar ideas.
Trump was the first president since Ronald Reagan (or some would argue, since earlier than that) who seemed to appreciate the dangers of unaccountable, unlimited, deep-state government. And I’m willing to bet he’d appreciate those dangers a lot more in a second term, having fallen victim to them himself in the 2020 election.
~Snip~
If you ask me, Trump’s presidency was much more “American” than it was “Republican.” That’s why it was such a success and why so many of us loved it. Now, if the Republican Party thinks it’s not big enough for Trump, it’s not going to be big enough for me either.
Do I think Trump can win as a third-party candidate? No. Would I vote for him as a third-party candidate? Yes. Because I’m not interested in propping up this corrupt gravy-train any longer. Mitch McConnell says that “providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the number one priority for the United States right now, according to most Republicans.” Most Republicans where? Inside his bank account?
Commentary:
Dan Gelernter has written a comprehensive historical comparison of past politics those of today.
The truth of the matter is that Republican politicians today as in the past would rather lose an election to Democrats, their brothers in crime, than win with Trump.
We are repeating the mistakes of the past.
There are some in the GOP who see Trump as a threat to the lobbyist money stream like Democrats. They don’t want that stream to dry up because, when you look at it, play-for-pay money is more important than the needs of the American people to politicians.
A symptom of this pay-for-play industry is the total out-of-control Southern Border. The GOP needs this crisis so they have something to use against the Democrats, which is unconscionable.
The border jumpers are today’s cotton picker—cheap labor for friends who line their pockets as a reward for keeping the border open.
Under the current system, winning elections is achieved by turning out voters, not by winning policy debates. In the Democrats case its counting the votes and purloining votes to win in close races.
Republicans must use every tool in the toolbox to maximize mail-in (and in-person) turnout in 2024.
It doesn't matter how you vote, as long as the Democrats control the counting of the votes/ballots... We saw that happen again in Arizona this past November.
