Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Email *
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • “Trump’s vow to end mutual absolution between parties threatens Democrats”

    Posted by Jonathan on November 5th, 2016 (All posts by )

    Some interesting speculations about the Democrats’ motives in the current election:

    But once he won, something rather unexpected happened: True to his claim of being a political outsider, Trump broke with an unwritten rule that Republicans and Democrats historically had abided by. Under that understanding, administrations of both parties basically guaranteed implied amnesties for legal breaches to outgoing administrations. The best recent example for this implied agreement was the failure of the Bush Junior administration to pursue any of a number of potential criminal claims against members of the Clinton administration. In other words, any administration that made it through its term without being indicted, was basically assured of no further legal consequences.
     
    The knowledge that one just had to survive till the end of an administration, has been at the core of quantitative and qualitative increases in government corruption this country has witnessed in recent decades, and nobody has been better in “surviving” than the last two Democratic administrations of Presidents Clinton and Obama.
     
    [. . .]
     
    That six days before the election Trump has in national opinion polls pulled even with Clinton, therefore, set off alarm bells among the Democratic elites. The election, suddenly, has become an existential fight for survival, far exceeding the traditional conflict for power and the spoils of power.
     
    We, therefore, can expect Clintonians and Democratic party, in cahoots with a majority of major media, in the last few days before the election to initiate a political bloodbath in attempts to derail Donald Trump. The election no longer is about who gains or retains the privileges of power but, as Trump stated, who goes to jail.

    Worth reading in full.

     

    14 Responses to ““Trump’s vow to end mutual absolution between parties threatens Democrats””

    1. Brian Says:

      I don’t buy it. No one’s going to jail, certainly no one at Hillary’s level. The fear is that Trump’s shown the filthy masses they don’t have to sit back and swallow the crap sandwich that both parties have been shoving down their mouths. In a decent system the Clintons don’t get to be hundred millionaires, and we know those two couldn’t abide being just regular folks.

    2. dearieme Says:

      As the last resort they’ll just assassinate him.

    3. Mike K Says:

      “As the last resort they’ll just assassinate him.”

      I’ve been worried about this since the convention. I think the USSS is also worried as they rushed him from the stage today,

    4. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      I agree that one or more assassination attempts are in the cards. And that there are multiple centers of power in both parties who may well cooperate in the matter.

      I offer a conjectural.

      The TEA Party arose, followed the rules, and by those rules won, and was crushed by both parties.

      Trump rose, with no respect for the unwritten rules of graceful losing to the Left, and is winning. And they may kill him.

      If they do kill him, whatever follows as the vehicle and repository of the demands for vengeance by the underclasses . . . what rules do you think he or she will follow, and how much quarter will be given by both sides?

    5. dearieme Says:

      Asked with the profound ignorance of the foreigner, is there any chance of a successful revolution without getting the Armed Forces onside? The intelligence services?

      The internet and phone companies, or at least some critical mass of their employees?

    6. Brian Says:

      There’s not going to be any revolution. It’d be nice to see red states start overtly resisting federal laws a la sanctuary cities but even that won’t happen.

      My prediction-Trump loses. The rot is too deep and his flaws and mistakes too great (why didn’t he try for black voters longer and harder?). I have no idea what comes next. The GOP is dead. Whoever comes next won’t be as nice as Trump, you can be sure of that.

    7. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Dearieme:

      I commend to your attention a short book by noted political scientist Edward Luttwak entitled “Coup d’Etat“; which was his first of many books and the first serious study of the mechanisms of such in about a century. I admit that I read it when it was new. I was an . . . unusual child.

      It is not a matter of having the entire armed forces, infrastructure, etc. on your side. It is a matter of having key people who can block, delay, or misdirect the reaction to the coup. I note that at the time he wrote it, statistically the most common method of changing government in the world was a coup d’etat.

      European countries are traditionally much more susceptible to coups in one form or another because of their class rigidity and top down government forms. Spontaneous organization without orders is not their thing.

      Noting that a failed coup ends in either the deaths of the plotters, a civil war, or a 4th Generation War [think the Former Yugoslavia] or a combination thereof; the traditional attitude here towards government, and the large middle class, much of which has both military training and access to arms and ammunition, a coup attempt will probably end up 4th Generation and extremely untidy.

      One part of the context that may be different from Europe involves the Coercive Organs of State Power. They live intermixed with the population, and many of them come from the cultural and social class that still believes in the Constitution.

      I am a retired Peace Officer. Sitting with some current Peace Officers over coffee, we were discussing what the response would be if ordered to violate the Constitution, specifically seizing firearms in violation of the Second Amendment.

      Of course, all Peace Officers in the country [and most other government employees at all levels] take the Oath. And that was brought up. That Oath never expires. We are almost all Grey Tribe Sheepdogs. I commend to your attention COL David Grossman’s article “Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs” along with Bill Whittle’s “Tribes” piece.

      The Oath was brought up by all. And the response was unanimous that the badge would come off and they would go home. But there was another factor.

      If they tried something like that, those who would resist would know where they and their families live. Going to open war against your own people is not without consequences. And we have numerous examples where Federal forces have killed civilians, women, and children with neither compunction nor regret. Not to mention receiving commendation. The government made the rules that will be used.

      A coup may be attempted. The corruption of our government has reached a point where they may believe it is possible. While it is a fiction piece, read Matt Bracken’s “What I saw at the coup” for a take on the attitudes. https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/

      It will be resisted. It will be bloody. There will be very little quarter given. None from the Left.

      What we have here is a breakdown of the Social Contract. The alternative to a legitimate government is war until a new Social Contract is established. There is no guarantee as to the nature of the new Contract.

    8. Mike K Says:

      “Going to open war against your own people is not without consequences.”

      The Chinese brought in soldiers from outer provinces to crush the Tiannenmen Square demonstrators.

      The soldiers may not have even spoken the same dialect as the protestors.

      That will not happen here. Organizations like the ATF might cooperate, as they did at Waco, but the government is too corrupt and it is too obvious now. At least I think so.

      The cynicism is far greater than even 1993.

    9. Grurray Says:

      Not counting JFK, the closest we have come to a coup was probably the alleged plot in 1933 against FDR

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

    10. Mike K Says:

      Smedley Butler was a genuine hero but, like many heroes, he was not as sophisticated as he needed to be to get involved in politics. The Bonus March was more significant than a “business plot.”

      Roosevelt went out of his way to demonize businessmen and then, when the war started, he needed them and they saved us and him with production like the world had never seen.

    11. Dr. Weevil Says:

      It seems to me that “mutual absolution between parties” is over and done with, whoever wins. If Trump pulls it out, it should be over with, and his Attorney General should send all the criminal swine in the Clinton Foundation, DOJ, IRS, VA, and a dozen other federal agencies, plus the White House, to jail. Something to hope for.

      If Clinton wins, can you doubt that she will do everything she can to bankrupt and maybe even jail Trump and to screw over everyone who even looked like they may have supported him? Some of the effects of what she does will be hard to distinguish from the effects of her open hostility to working people and conservatives and her gross economic and political incompetence, but some of it will be carefully targeted so we can see that it’s personal, and intentionally so: she will want us (and everyone else) to know it’s personal.

      I’m not looking forward to the next four years, even if Trump pulls it out, because (if he wins) I expect Obama and the rest of the Uniparty to spend the next 2 1/2 months doing everything they can to prevent him from doing any good, including wrecking the economy, the social fabric, the military, and our foreign relationships even more thoroughly than they have already wrecked them.

      Either way, it’s seatbelt-fastening time. Wish I had some financial assets to cushion the ride. A part-time job with no health insurance and 10,000 books in a rented apartment isn’t really what I need at this time.

    12. Grurray Says:

      Mike, the plan was bonkers, but they were on the right track with their scheme for a ‘Secretary of General Affairs’. Roosevelt had gotten passed the Economy Act and the Reorganization Acts which allowed him to expand his powers shifting many executive functions and agencies directly under his control. FDR started the tradition of appointing policy Czars. He had 19 with only 2 appointed by the Senate. It wasn’t and still isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that a Czar could be appointed with extraordinary powers during a period of crisis.

      Could you compel the president to do it? Maybe if they were in poor health or prone to require long periods of rest. One of Luttwak’s rules for a successful coup is seize control of mass communications and media (Leftist operatives in influential positions perhaps). Another rule is neutralize potential counter-revolutionary troops (such as Federal law enforcement agents).

      It’s starting to seem more plausible.

    13. Mike K Says:

      “It’s starting to seem more plausible.”

      If they try it will get very messy as many LEOs are Trump supporters. Also military.

    14. Mike K Says:

      If it was Romney, I don’t know that he would get support from “ordinary people” but Trump is different.