The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Jamie Kirchick Threatens a Military Coup Against a President Trump
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Jamie Kirchick, one of Martin Peretz’s aging Bright Young Men (a skein that includes Andrew Sullivan and Al Gore), writes in the Los Angeles Times:

If Trump wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.

… If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things — from open racism to blatant lying. Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …

Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.

James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Initiative. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.

 
Hide 160 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A prominent French Socialist politician said the same thing, should Marine Le Pen win the elections next year.

    On one hand, wishful thinking. In both countries officers and the military on average might actually support the nationalist candidates. On the other hand, frightening how our elites are openly advocating for a military coup and basically threatening voters with martial law unless voters comply and vote for the establishment candidates.

    • Agree: jtgw
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The difference is that France is culturally Catholic and Continental, with a tradition of authoritarianism, from royal absolutism before the Revolution to the French Empire. The French military also tends to be more Catholic, more authoritarian, and less sympathetic to Republicanism.

    By contrast, in the US, there is still enough of a British descended, culturally "Roundhead" population in the military and outside of it that will reflexively oppose any royalist or caudillismo pretensions on the part of a Trump that opposes "Parliament".
  2. That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    Nice one.
    , @Kylie
    Wonderful!

    And wonderful to see you commenting again.
    , @bob sykes
    LOL
    , @James O'Meara
    Yeah, gotta keep them Alexanders out. Otherwise, we might wind up winning a war, maybe even the whole known world.

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington's staff?

    Or ever ... read?
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Gold Box!
    , @FX Enderby
    Perfection!
    , @Verymuchalive
    It certainly wouldn't be Seven Goys in May.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Stop! My ribs! You're killin' me!
  3. Das says:

    Trump is possibly the one person in political life today who actually would be impeached if he got out of line and abused his authority.

    The entire party establishment hates him. A lot of grassroots social conservatives would rather have Pence than Trump as president.

    If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.

    • Replies: @Rob McX

    If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.
     
    That's why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying "IMPEACH ME" on his back.
  4. I saw this on an earlier thread and commented that I think this is projection on the part of Hillary supporters. A coup is more likely (although still very unlikely) in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency gone disastrously awry (millions of refugees; possible losing wars against Russia; cities in flame and a crashing economy) than against a Trump Administration.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    I wondered how Jamie Kirchick would had reacted if someone had written:"If Hillary wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.?" ;-)
    , @Connecticut Famer
    A pity that we are left with these two from which to chose. On balance, however, I think Trump would be a better choice for the very reasons you state. This woman has no scruples whatsoever.
  5. Or, as Steve wrote in another post, “the Establishment having a nervous breakdown”.

  6. “President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …”

    I think he made a mistake getting people to contemplate for what trivial reasons Hillary might order an attack on a foreign country. Judging by Serbia & Libya the precedents are not good.

    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Nico
    I wouldn't put it past her to openly threaten to bomb Chile and Nicaragua unless they relaxed their anti-abortion statutes.

    Beyond that, if the author is actually thinking it is now acceptable to make even off-color racial remarks in "respectable" company or that Hillary Clinton's skin is anything but thin I would like to know what in the purple hazes he has been smoking and where I can get some.
    , @guest
    We know the reasons she'd go to war: democracy, freedom, human rights, women's rights, gay rights, minority du jour rights, global U.S. hegemony in order to implement the New World Order, etc.
    , @Olorin
    As an RF Laird punk close to the age of our host, the one thing I have consistently observed for the past 35 years among Democrat Boomers and their lib-prog offshoots is their propensity to throw under the bus every last person and issue they ever championed.

    I don't see this so much as an abandonment of their principles as the fact that they never had them in the first place. Their principles were for display, to differentiate themselves from others upon whom they projected various traits, in order to build demographic bases for their climb to power.

    So with nukes/anti-nukes.

    I grew up in the land of my 17th century ancestors, which by the 1960s and 1970s was the #2 strategic target for Soviet ICBMs. So this was a prominent and intimate daily issue for us. Pretty hard on an intelligent kid. And we were still doing school duck and cover drills in the late 1960s.

    Various observations and awakenings led me to conclude by age 28 something radically HBD:

    If nuclear weapons had been in the hands of any policymakers and military leaders OTHER THAN white men of Northern European ancestry with plus-mean (but not too high) IQs, forward thinking, impulse control, ability to subsume emotion to reason, etc., operating within robust, homogeneous, functioning organizational contexts--nukes would have been used.

    This is my #2 reason for rejecting Hillary Rodham. After #1 reason (SCOTUS appointments) and Zeroth reason (she's the love child of Lady Macbeth and Beelzebub).

  7. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    Nice one.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    1) Sustains his thesis with lies that revert evident truth (Hillary's the danger. war-wise).

    2) Has written a book whose title is "The end of Europe" (Chances are, if you write such a book and title it that way, you have a paranoid liking/hope of the "end of Europe")

    3) Let me be polite, I don't want to state it.

    If three clues make a proof, this guy is a...
  8. Is calling for a military coup allowed by US law ?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    The same thought occurred to me.
    , @larry lurker
    IANAL, but from what I remember reading in Volokh's First Amendment case law textbook*, you're probably in the clear if you call for the revolution to take place at some indefinite time in the future; it would not be protected speech, however, to plan a coup for the coming weekend.

    * best drunken Amazon purchase ever

    , @Boomstick
    Sure, it's allowed. No end of stupid things are allowed.

    Though it's kind of hilarious to hear progressives passive-aggressively wish-hoping for a coup after claiming for years that gun owners are "insurrectionist."
    , @whorefinder
    It' depends:

    If the Left is doing it....then Yes, because either (1) we were founded on revolution, comrade!; or (2) it's not a revolution, it's just take it back from those evil, democratically-elected dictator-usurpers.

    If the non-Left is doing it....then NO! Arrest these seditious, unAmerican rebels immediately!

    Who...Whom?
    , @schmenz
    Well, when you are a snivelling little homosexual with Jewish ancestry like Kirchick, you can say or do anything apparently.
  9. @Simon in London
    "President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …"

    I think he made a mistake getting people to contemplate for what trivial reasons Hillary might order an attack on a foreign country. Judging by Serbia & Libya the precedents are not good.

    I wouldn’t put it past her to openly threaten to bomb Chile and Nicaragua unless they relaxed their anti-abortion statutes.

    Beyond that, if the author is actually thinking it is now acceptable to make even off-color racial remarks in “respectable” company or that Hillary Clinton’s skin is anything but thin I would like to know what in the purple hazes he has been smoking and where I can get some.

  10. just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …

    Rubio’s a foreign leader now?

    Also, quod licet Jovi, etc.

    • Replies: @FX Enderby
    More like Quod licet Iudaei non licet Bovi -

    What is permissible for Jews is forbidden to Goyim (cattle)
  11. Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to “open up” libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    • Replies: @EriK

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.
     
    Apparently it's not illegal if caused by a drone "targeting" error.
    , @bomag

    If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.
     
    A rather naive statement. Those entities do political things. The Bureaucracy has carried out the illegal order to allow undocumented immigrants into the country, and the only consequence has been a budget increase.
    , @Lurker

    If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things
     
    Phew, it's lucky that no establishment politician would ever do such a thing. Like, I dunno, maintain a private email server for example. Would never happen.
    , @AndrewR
    Much better to just have bored O-3s "accidentally" murdering swarthy Moslem children with drones. That's legal, right?
    , @ben tillman

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to “open up” libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking.
     
    This hardly distinguishes him from the current President or his opponent. And he's right about libel laws, and the Supreme Court is wrong.
    , @Big Bill
    He is a WASP, a Presbyterian, and a successful businessman and real estate developer. He does throw around a lot of red meat for the masses, but it's largely for show.

    He is less extremist than honored presidents such Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, or John Kennedy.

    And Jamie Kirchick isn't going to foment a coup, he just likes to sound apocalyptic.
    , @27 year old
    this guy is literally "muh constitution"

    please, old guy, leave us to fix your mess in peace
    , @Joe Walker
    Are you saying that Hillary "Black Lives Matter" Clinton would be a better president than Trump?
  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon in London
    Nice one.

    1) Sustains his thesis with lies that revert evident truth (Hillary’s the danger. war-wise).

    2) Has written a book whose title is “The end of Europe” (Chances are, if you write such a book and title it that way, you have a paranoid liking/hope of the “end of Europe”)

    3) Let me be polite, I don’t want to state it.

    If three clues make a proof, this guy is a…

  13. The trouble is that it seems likely that B. Clinton did order sticks on Serbia to distract attention from Monica. It seems Hillary’s making money off of national secrets was probably not done with a view to protect national security

  14. Ed says:

    I guess someone should tell him the military supports him 2-1 over Clinton. I suspect the one consists of primarily black service personnel too.

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.

    • Replies: @Lurker

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.
     
    I must say it would appear that the rank and file soldiery just didnt seem to have their hearts in the enterprise allowing themselves to disarmed and rounded up by civilians. A few mass shootings would have shown they meant business and Erdogan might have been toast. Maybe the senior ranks have become lazy, assuming a show of force was enough?
    , @iSteveFan

    I guess someone should tell him the military supports him 2-1 over Clinton.
     
    Isn't it ironic that the war mongers who act like they are the final word on all things military attack the candidate whom the rank and file support the most. Even when Ron Paul ran four years ago, he was ridiculed for his defense positions. Yet he was receiving the most financial donations from active duty military members.

    There definitely is a disconnect between America's military and her armchair generals.

    , @SteveRogers42
    It would be interesting to see that stat broken down into combat arms personnel vs. support services. As you get closer to the tip of the spear, you get an overwhelming preponderance of stale pale males. I believe the SEALs are 2% black, Army SF is 5% black, and blacks are virtually nonexistent in USAF PJ's and combat controllers. I wonder who all those blue-eyed devils support for PREZ?
  15. I’m reminded of an old Onion snippet:

    “Maybe the two Americas should just have separate elections?”.

    Soon, mein schutze, soon.

    • Agree: 27 year old
  16. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    Wonderful!

    And wonderful to see you commenting again.

    • Replies: @Kudzu Bob
    And it is wonderful to hear from you as well. You are very kind.
  17. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.

    The End of Europe: How My Preferred Policies Helped Wreck It.

  18. Wow. Hard to believe this is published in the ‘quality’ MSN. Where is the editor?
    Still the piece was eviscerated in the comments.

  19. Jamie Kirchick, jewish and homosexual.
    “This Trump is terrible, and such small portions”.

  20. Let me elaborate, lest anyone accuse me of simply pointing and spluttering from the right.
    My liberal-arts education 40 years ago was imbued with the idea that you’re just blah, blah, blah till you’ve thrown a few Molotov Cocktails. The idea, as Marx said, was to change the world, not just talk about it.
    Young James may be seeking to burnish his credentials, at what he sees as a pivotal time in the Struggle for anti-badism. Egregious lust for violence from the left won’t surprise anyone over 40.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    "My liberal-arts education 40 years ago was imbued with the idea that you’re just blah, blah, blah till you’ve thrown a few Molotov Cocktails."

    Sounds like you were poorly educated.

    "Young James may be seeking to burnish his credentials, at what he sees as a pivotal time in the Struggle for anti-badism"

    But being a neocon homo, he just sits and hopes someone else does it for him.
  21. @Kylie
    Wonderful!

    And wonderful to see you commenting again.

    And it is wonderful to hear from you as well. You are very kind.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    Please don't be a stranger. This election year would be far more bearable with you here.
  22. After Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself without a serious determination to go to trial is toothless now. Bill just brushed it off and ended his presidency with decent ratings.

    But impeachment and a determined conviction are a possibility if a President Donald Trump gives great offense, given the number of people on both sides of the aisle who hate him.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    And given the spineless cuck he chose as his VP.
  23. I have thought that the Left will use violence to stop Trump because of two reasons. (1) Power is their religion. That is,– they do not have transcendental Biblical traditional religious values. Thus they bring to politics all the fervor you would normally find in religious fanatics. (2) I have some interest in Marxism, and am aware of some of its doctrines. See some Marxist writings and you too will see that the tendency is to advocate violence. Plus, I saw that these kinds of books were being taught even in the humanities and social studies departments of good universities that I was in like Polytechnic in NY. So in terms of that I have to agree with the previous comment.

  24. @neutral
    Is calling for a military coup allowed by US law ?

    The same thought occurred to me.

  25. This idea that Trump might start a nuclear war sounds daft, but Josh Barro ran with it too. I responded here. Excerpt:

    Who Offers The Bigger Risk Of War?

    Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?

    Reality Versus Dr. Strangelove

    For anyone old enough to remember the ’90s (as Barro is), the idea of Donald Trump, guest star on The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air, as a character out of Dr. Strangelove, intent on sparking a nuclear war, should strain credulity. If it doesn’t, consider that, as Ron Rosenbaum noted, Trump has been concerned about nuclear proliferation since 1987. After some de rigueur swipes at Trump’s garish taste and his temperament, Rosenbaum concedes,

    He seemed genuinely aware of just how much danger nukes put the world in and how futile efforts thus far had been to deal with that danger. He didn’t sound eager to pull the trigger, which I guess is good. There had to be a deal!

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?"

    You failed to mention two other Hillary initiatives. First, she has been advocating arming Ukraine, which Trump opposes. Secondly, she has been calling for "no-fly zones" over Syria, also opposed by Trump, which, apart from being illegal, threaten confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, which just happens to be in Syria legally at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria. I am, like you, astounded by the role reversal where the Hillary campaign is portraying Trump as the risky choice whereas she is the one going around proposing all these risky foreign ventures that carry heightened risk of nuclear war with Russia.

    I also recall in that Republican debate back in January when Hugh Hewitt tried to trap Trump with his question about the "nuclear triad." Later claiming that he didn't hear the question, Trump answered the "question" by riffing on the horrors of nuclear war. That hardly sounded to me like a man anxious to get his finger on the nuclear trigger just so he could launch a nuclear war with Russia. Although I concede that Trump probably had no idea what the "nuclear triad" was, I found his answer rather reassuring, whereas I found no reassurance in Senator Rubio's glib recital of what the nuclear triad was (I'm convinced that Hewitt, who was a Rubio supporter at one point, fed Rubio that question before the debate just so he would be ready to answer following the anticipated flub by Trump).
  26. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.

    Apparently it’s not illegal if caused by a drone “targeting” error.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Collateral damage...
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I like the idea of deporting all immediate family of terrorists who have immigrated here or have immigrant parents. Not saying it's doable, but in a sane world it would make sense, as would not allowing Muslims to immigrate here in the first place.
    , @KMan
    Were the bombing campaigns of WW2 in Europe and Japan illegal? They certainly targeted civilian populations.
    , @pyrrhus
    Indeed, didn't Obama once brag about all the civilians he had killed with drones while killing a few "terrorists" too?!
    , @Brutusale
    This was a pretty thorough take:

    https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Complex-Governments-Warfare-Program/dp/1501144138

    It's by one of "The Intercept" crew, so take it with whatever grains of salt needed. I found it pretty convincing.
  27. @Dave Pinsen
    This idea that Trump might start a nuclear war sounds daft, but Josh Barro ran with it too. I responded here. Excerpt:

    Who Offers The Bigger Risk Of War?

    Barro's "safe bet" candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a "disastrous Libyan intervention," as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, "The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016." In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party's nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?

    Reality Versus Dr. Strangelove

    For anyone old enough to remember the '90s (as Barro is), the idea of Donald Trump, guest star on The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air, as a character out of Dr. Strangelove, intent on sparking a nuclear war, should strain credulity. If it doesn't, consider that, as Ron Rosenbaum noted, Trump has been concerned about nuclear proliferation since 1987. After some de rigueur swipes at Trump's garish taste and his temperament, Rosenbaum concedes,

    He seemed genuinely aware of just how much danger nukes put the world in and how futile efforts thus far had been to deal with that danger. He didn't sound eager to pull the trigger, which I guess is good. There had to be a deal!
     

    “Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?”

    You failed to mention two other Hillary initiatives. First, she has been advocating arming Ukraine, which Trump opposes. Secondly, she has been calling for “no-fly zones” over Syria, also opposed by Trump, which, apart from being illegal, threaten confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, which just happens to be in Syria legally at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria. I am, like you, astounded by the role reversal where the Hillary campaign is portraying Trump as the risky choice whereas she is the one going around proposing all these risky foreign ventures that carry heightened risk of nuclear war with Russia.

    I also recall in that Republican debate back in January when Hugh Hewitt tried to trap Trump with his question about the “nuclear triad.” Later claiming that he didn’t hear the question, Trump answered the “question” by riffing on the horrors of nuclear war. That hardly sounded to me like a man anxious to get his finger on the nuclear trigger just so he could launch a nuclear war with Russia. Although I concede that Trump probably had no idea what the “nuclear triad” was, I found his answer rather reassuring, whereas I found no reassurance in Senator Rubio’s glib recital of what the nuclear triad was (I’m convinced that Hewitt, who was a Rubio supporter at one point, fed Rubio that question before the debate just so he would be ready to answer following the anticipated flub by Trump).

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Oh come now! It's only Russia she's looking to pick a fight with. I mean, we show those dirty Bolshies a little truth, justice and the American way by splashing a few of their MIGs in Syria and they'll back right down. Won't they? I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
    , @Forbes
    The 'nuclear triad' question was cold war era jargon left over from the '80s. Maybe a round of questions from Trivial Pursuit ?
    , @yowza
    I recall Hillary on video, Hillary laughing, while remarking on Quadaffi after his vicious death, "we came, we saw, he died."

    It struck me as extremely lowbrow hillbilly shit for the Secretary of Defense of the United States to say something like that immediately after a man is shown bing torn apart by what amounts to regional gang members, like pitbulls ripping on a chicken, on video, despite whatever you think of him.

    She has some big disconnect in her head that's disquieting to say the least. I honestly don't see Trump doing that under those circumstances.

    Via multiple demonstrations, she actually personifies what libs fear about Trump.

    Cognitive dissonance is awesome.
  28. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    LOL

  29. I’ve been praying for a coup for the last 7 1/2 years, and it hasn’t happened, so I it think it’s just wishful thinking on his part.

    Exactly who in hell is Jamie Kirchick, anyway?? Another Harvard-Yale demigod lowering himself from Olympus to tell us lowly worms what we ought to think? Gay, too. Well that obviously makes him superior to us hetero “breeder” scum.

    • Replies: @Evocatus
    Kirchick is the Lazar Kaganovich of the Republican Party
  30. Far more likely is young people rioting in the streets after a Trump victory — necessitating calling out the Nation Guard.

  31. “such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton”: I read that as unbridled sarcasm.; he’s saying that she’s a mendacious warmonger, isn’t he? Or is he terminally dim?

  32. A Jewish passive homosexual who has never handled a weapon in his life is threatening a military coup?

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The term of art is passive-aggressive. “Let’s you and him fight.” From time to time throughout history, instigating lil’ imps like Kirchick are slammed by severe blowback of the less than pleasurable variety. I’ve got a funny feeling we are on the threshold of one of those cycles.
  33. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    A rather naive statement. Those entities do political things. The Bureaucracy has carried out the illegal order to allow undocumented immigrants into the country, and the only consequence has been a budget increase.

  34. @tbraton
    "Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?"

    You failed to mention two other Hillary initiatives. First, she has been advocating arming Ukraine, which Trump opposes. Secondly, she has been calling for "no-fly zones" over Syria, also opposed by Trump, which, apart from being illegal, threaten confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, which just happens to be in Syria legally at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria. I am, like you, astounded by the role reversal where the Hillary campaign is portraying Trump as the risky choice whereas she is the one going around proposing all these risky foreign ventures that carry heightened risk of nuclear war with Russia.

    I also recall in that Republican debate back in January when Hugh Hewitt tried to trap Trump with his question about the "nuclear triad." Later claiming that he didn't hear the question, Trump answered the "question" by riffing on the horrors of nuclear war. That hardly sounded to me like a man anxious to get his finger on the nuclear trigger just so he could launch a nuclear war with Russia. Although I concede that Trump probably had no idea what the "nuclear triad" was, I found his answer rather reassuring, whereas I found no reassurance in Senator Rubio's glib recital of what the nuclear triad was (I'm convinced that Hewitt, who was a Rubio supporter at one point, fed Rubio that question before the debate just so he would be ready to answer following the anticipated flub by Trump).

    Oh come now! It’s only Russia she’s looking to pick a fight with. I mean, we show those dirty Bolshies a little truth, justice and the American way by splashing a few of their MIGs in Syria and they’ll back right down. Won’t they? I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    " I mean, we show those dirty Bolshies a little truth, justice and the American way by splashing a few of their MIGs in Syria and they’ll back right down. Won’t they? I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?"

    You're right. I should look on the bright side of things. If worse comes to worst, I can finally employ that sure-fire life saving technique we used to practice in elementary school back in the 50's: get under a wooden desk and cover your head with your arms. That should do the trick.
    , @avraham
    That is a good point. It seems clear that only Trump understands the importance of not provoking the Russians
  35. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Trump candidacy is a good thing in that it’s highlighted the contrast between the business as usual policies of the moneybag establishment and the desires of the majority of the citizens of the US. It’s also possibly a onetime event where an independently wealthy person became a candidate and who was thus able to speak freely and wasn’t just a representative of some faction of billionaires. People like this Kirchick are irrelevant, noisy self-promoters. The contradictions are out in the open now; let it all come to a head.

  36. @EriK

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.
     
    Apparently it's not illegal if caused by a drone "targeting" error.

    Collateral damage…

  37. @Das
    Trump is possibly the one person in political life today who actually would be impeached if he got out of line and abused his authority.

    The entire party establishment hates him. A lot of grassroots social conservatives would rather have Pence than Trump as president.

    If there's at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he's as good as gone.

    If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    Based on everything that has been reported, it sounds like Trump was pressured into taking Pence. Financial backing was probably contingent on him picking an establishment VP and Trump felt like he had to do it.
    , @PiltdownMan

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.
     
    Maybe he figures that Republicans will want a Pence presidency even less than a Trump presidency, which would make Mike Pence Donald Trump's insurance policy against impeachment and conviction.

    As I noted above, after Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself has lost its juju in American presidential politics. The Senate would have to convict, on top of an impeachment.
    , @mobi

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.

     

    But how would he defend against that? By choosing a VP candidate so much worse than him, in the eyes of the enemy, that Trump becomes preferable, to them?

    He can't be impeached if he never makes it into office in the first place. It looks like it's going to be close.

    Wrong tactical choice of VP = guaranteed 'self-impeachment'. Best available choice of VP (tactically) = (remote) possibility of impeachment.

    He has to focus on the obstacle directly in front of him. Pence was the best option available for making it past. What comes after, comes, and can't be predicted.

    And, as noted, Clinton ignored his (House) impeachment. What are the chances Trump wouldn't, to the point of having to be dragged out, kicking and screaming ('treason')?

    And even if he was, they would do more damage to their cause than letting him serve and inevitably disappoint.
  38. I’ve been telling people a coup is likely with Hilary. The police hate her. They might be more important than the military.

    So the SJWs will march on a Trump lead Washington? Good luck!

  39. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.

    That title sounds like another, even more serious, threat.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Christopher Caldwell already wrote that book in 2009.

    https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-Europe-Immigration-Islam/dp/0385518269/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1469045789&sr=8-1
  40. @PiltdownMan
    After Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself without a serious determination to go to trial is toothless now. Bill just brushed it off and ended his presidency with decent ratings.

    But impeachment and a determined conviction are a possibility if a President Donald Trump gives great offense, given the number of people on both sides of the aisle who hate him.

    And given the spineless cuck he chose as his VP.

  41. @tbraton
    "Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?"

    You failed to mention two other Hillary initiatives. First, she has been advocating arming Ukraine, which Trump opposes. Secondly, she has been calling for "no-fly zones" over Syria, also opposed by Trump, which, apart from being illegal, threaten confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, which just happens to be in Syria legally at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria. I am, like you, astounded by the role reversal where the Hillary campaign is portraying Trump as the risky choice whereas she is the one going around proposing all these risky foreign ventures that carry heightened risk of nuclear war with Russia.

    I also recall in that Republican debate back in January when Hugh Hewitt tried to trap Trump with his question about the "nuclear triad." Later claiming that he didn't hear the question, Trump answered the "question" by riffing on the horrors of nuclear war. That hardly sounded to me like a man anxious to get his finger on the nuclear trigger just so he could launch a nuclear war with Russia. Although I concede that Trump probably had no idea what the "nuclear triad" was, I found his answer rather reassuring, whereas I found no reassurance in Senator Rubio's glib recital of what the nuclear triad was (I'm convinced that Hewitt, who was a Rubio supporter at one point, fed Rubio that question before the debate just so he would be ready to answer following the anticipated flub by Trump).

    The ‘nuclear triad’ question was cold war era jargon left over from the ’80s. Maybe a round of questions from Trivial Pursuit ?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    As I posted at the time, https://www.unz.com/isteve/slate-rises-to-trumps-challenge-muslim-clerics-need-higher-pay/#comment-1264679 and https://www.unz.com/isteve/republican-debate-open-thread/#comment-1320119, Hewitt's "question" about the "nuclear triad" was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. I have known about the "nuclear triad" since I was in college 50 years ago, and I am ready to concede that Trump may not have been familiar with the term. But, in posing the "question" to Trump, Hewitt also announced that he was going to follow-up with the same question to Senator Rubio, which he did. ("Wake Up Call, Marco. Be ready to answer because you're next.") It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio, something that wasn't revealed before the Las Vegas debate in December. Nor was there any mention at a subsequent debate a few weeks later where Hewitt was again one of the questioners of any endorsement of Rubio by him. Rubio's answer was so precise that I jumped to the conclusion that he must have been fed the question by Hewitt before the debate. The whole thing smelled like a prearranged plot to sabotage Trump's candidacy. As I stated at the time, Trump's lack of knowledge about the "nuclear triad" did not serve as a disqualification of his candidacy, nor did Rubio's glib recital of the meaning of "nuclear triad" (which was absolutely accurate) make me any more comfortable with Rubio's neoconnish foreign policy that I was familiar with (being a Florida resident) from the time he ran for the Senate in 2010.
  42. Consider the words of Chief of Staff General Casey after 13 people were massacred at Fort Hood:

    And as horrific as this tragedy [sic] was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

    Doesn’t inspire much faith in the military, does it?

    • Replies: @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque
    The Mahometan Jihad strike was in 2009. One would think The Kenyan could have found a way to bring him to trial by now but he hasn't because BLM and so the media is just falling apart before our eyes as they freak out about Trump.

    The Creditor Class Oligarchs can not believe what is happening and they hate the fact that the dumb ass debtor low class no class creeps might vote Trump into office despite the Oligarchs warnings to everyone that bad whites electing Trump mean mayhem and madness will be set free by Charon.

    O, and the guy who wrote this splenetic yelp? He prolly realises his job is also on the line if Trump wins for who needs him, or George Will, of Paul Krugman, or Bill Kristol, or Rich Lowrey, or any of the other cuck whores who have sold their souls to the Oligarchs?
    , @Uncle Peregrine
    I've seen this quote a lot and have finally realized that in a profession where your government is likely at any time to send you into the Muslim world where you are going to have to do business with the local governments, you are probably going to think this way.
    , @Joe Walker
    I'm pretty sure he wasn't speaking for the rank and file members of our military. He was probably just saying what he had been ordered to say.
    , @another fred

    Doesn’t inspire much faith in the military, does it?
     
    No, but when I think about the fact that they are trying to convert the military into a global police force, enforcing a globalist agenda, I don't expect anything different.

    On one hand I'm glad I'm old and don't have to see the coming catastrophes in full bloom, on the other I wish I could be around to laugh at these fools when it all turns to ashes.
  43. So considering that he supports the death penalty for traitors, just like Donald Trump, I take it then Kirchick won’t have any complaints when his coup fails and he is strapped onto the lethal injection gurney?

  44. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things

    Phew, it’s lucky that no establishment politician would ever do such a thing. Like, I dunno, maintain a private email server for example. Would never happen.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Yeah, or: 1. Provide military aid to a military regime (Egypt) which gained power through a coup against an elected civilian government, a violation of U.S. law. 2. Refuse to enforce statutory U.S. immigration law ("He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"-- Article II, U.S. Constitution). Bomb a Doctors Without Borders ("MSF") hospital in Afghanistan (a war crime under international law). 3. Execute "suspected" terrorists by drone strike without due process of law. 4. Read the emails of U.S. citizens without judicial warrant (in violation of the 4th Amendment). Search all passengers boarding a commercial aircraft, a violation of the Constitutional doctrine of "probable cause" (4th Amendment again).
  45. @Ed
    I guess someone should tell him the military supports him 2-1 over Clinton. I suspect the one consists of primarily black service personnel too.

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.

    I must say it would appear that the rank and file soldiery just didnt seem to have their hearts in the enterprise allowing themselves to disarmed and rounded up by civilians. A few mass shootings would have shown they meant business and Erdogan might have been toast. Maybe the senior ranks have become lazy, assuming a show of force was enough?

    • Replies: @International Jew
    The real Turkish army was gutted by Erdogan long ago.
    , @27 year old
    Or the whole thing was a setup
  46. ” If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things — from open racism to blatant lying. ”

    So Kirchick believes it’s plausible that the United States government could be overthrown because Donald Trump has normalized . . . . . saying stuff.

    I don’t really need to elaborate, but Kirchick actually suggested that “blatant lying” was not already normal for politicians. So which of these is Kirchick not aware: Iraq has WMDs? The blue dress? “I am not a crook”? “They hate us for our freedoms”? “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base”? “Assad has not joined Hitler and Hussein”?

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Ditzkreig,......" consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things....." like gay marriage, non gender bathrooms, trans in the military, combat roles for women, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, nukes for Iran......Oh wait, that was Obama, but..."Look, a squirrel."
  47. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    Much better to just have bored O-3s “accidentally” murdering swarthy Moslem children with drones. That’s legal, right?

  48. @Rob McX
    Consider the words of Chief of Staff General Casey after 13 people were massacred at Fort Hood:

    And as horrific as this tragedy [sic] was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
     
    Doesn't inspire much faith in the military, does it?

    The Mahometan Jihad strike was in 2009. One would think The Kenyan could have found a way to bring him to trial by now but he hasn’t because BLM and so the media is just falling apart before our eyes as they freak out about Trump.

    The Creditor Class Oligarchs can not believe what is happening and they hate the fact that the dumb ass debtor low class no class creeps might vote Trump into office despite the Oligarchs warnings to everyone that bad whites electing Trump mean mayhem and madness will be set free by Charon.

    O, and the guy who wrote this splenetic yelp? He prolly realises his job is also on the line if Trump wins for who needs him, or George Will, of Paul Krugman, or Bill Kristol, or Rich Lowrey, or any of the other cuck whores who have sold their souls to the Oligarchs?

  49. @Hunsdon
    Oh come now! It's only Russia she's looking to pick a fight with. I mean, we show those dirty Bolshies a little truth, justice and the American way by splashing a few of their MIGs in Syria and they'll back right down. Won't they? I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

    ” I mean, we show those dirty Bolshies a little truth, justice and the American way by splashing a few of their MIGs in Syria and they’ll back right down. Won’t they? I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?”

    You’re right. I should look on the bright side of things. If worse comes to worst, I can finally employ that sure-fire life saving technique we used to practice in elementary school back in the 50’s: get under a wooden desk and cover your head with your arms. That should do the trick.

  50. Ugh….him. Yes, some of us have good memories and can remember things from a long time back.*

    Kirchick was/is the detestable young neocon lickspittle who smeared Ron Paul as racist in the 2008 presidential race, mainly due to those oh so offensive newsletters (clutch pearls now).

    * Also remember Trump implying or saying Pat Buchanan was a Nazi sympathizer circa 1999 0r 2000.

    What a strange world we live in.

  51. @Rob McX

    If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.
     
    That's why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying "IMPEACH ME" on his back.

    Based on everything that has been reported, it sounds like Trump was pressured into taking Pence. Financial backing was probably contingent on him picking an establishment VP and Trump felt like he had to do it.

    • Replies: @Forbes

    Based on everything that has been reported...
     
    Yeah, cuz lapdog media surmise and speculation has been so crystal ball-like this election cycle.
  52. Just like Trump was going to be denied the nomination right? More wishful thinking on the part of leftists.

    > Trump is not only patently unfit to be president

    Based on the author’s personal subjective criteria. That isn’t how democracy or any stable system of government works. But of course leftists are solipsists so it would be useless to try to argue that point with them.

  53. A violent coup? With what? Remember, the left doesn’t believe in guns.

    Our violent revolutionary fantasies are also non-starters, but the difference is that most of us know how to use guns, so that’s why people take our delusions more seriously.

    I tend to think this article is either clickbait or eliminationism or both. Kirchick probably wants someone else to assassinate Trump to save him the trouble of trying to carry out his fantasies.

    • Agree: Barnard
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    A violent coup? With what? Remember, the left doesn’t believe in guns.
     
    Oh, the Left most certainly DOES believe in guns -- as long as THEY have them, and YOU don't. Remember Mao's maxim "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." I think Mao qualified as a lefty...

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/06/professor-who-called-for-shooting-up-nra-under-investigation/
    , @Joe Walker
    The left doesn't believe in guns until they need them.
  54. Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her

    Don’t put it past her. She’s one of the most vindictive people alive.

  55. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to “open up” libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking.

    This hardly distinguishes him from the current President or his opponent. And he’s right about libel laws, and the Supreme Court is wrong.

  56. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    Yeah, gotta keep them Alexanders out. Otherwise, we might wind up winning a war, maybe even the whole known world.

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington’s staff?

    Or ever … read?

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington’s staff?
     
    I heard that motherfucker, had like, 30 goddamn dicks.

    He once held an opponent’s wife’s hand in a... jar of acid. At a party.
    , @Kudzu Bob

    Or ever … read?
     
    Funny that you should ask. Just this week I downloaded a collection of essays titled Green Nazis in Space! onto my Kindle. So far it is very enjoyable, particularly the pieces dealing with The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and Harper Lee. The author is very intelligent and would seem to have a healthy sense of humor.
    , @Marcus
    Sorry to disappoint WN gayboys, but that's largely a product of Oliver Stone's imagination

    But when [p. 419] Philoxenus,73 the governor of the coast-lands of Asia Minor, wrote to Alexander that there was in Ionia a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist, and inquired in his letter whether he should send the boy on to him. Alexander wrote bitterly in reply, ‘Vilest of men, what deed of this sort have you ever been privy to in my past that now you would flatter me with the offer of such pleasures?’
     
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0007,087:1
  57. @EriK

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.
     
    Apparently it's not illegal if caused by a drone "targeting" error.

    I like the idea of deporting all immediate family of terrorists who have immigrated here or have immigrant parents. Not saying it’s doable, but in a sane world it would make sense, as would not allowing Muslims to immigrate here in the first place.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    What about bulldozing their houses? It works for Israel.
    , @FX Enderby
    Sounds like a policy Jamie Kirchick's tribe would gladly embrace for Israel.

    The same tribe who would scream for a bloody military coup if this was even proposed for America.
  58. Jamie Kirchick…this wikipedia confirmed pajama boy is tripping. Here is my only scenario for intervention by the US military.
    Democrats do so much blatant cheating in black inner city precincts that they swing Pennsylvania, Michigan and few other states against Trump so that he loses in the Electoral College but still wins the nationwide popular vote by a million or two.
    Unlike the cuckificated Paul Ryan type Republicans, DJT refuses to accept this cheating. The Obama/Democrat packed Federal courts get involved and their decisions are stupid and awful to 80% of Americans. No one is happy with them. So this mess gets bounced up to the Black Robed Bozos of Supreme Court which has only has eight Justices. They render a four-four non-decision.
    This is when the US military might step in as custodian of the Federal government for a few months until the 2016 Election can be settled by horse trading between Dems and Republicans.

  59. I am so tired of the Jamie Kirchiks of our wonkteriat.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I don't trust anything written by someone named Jamie. It's not a real name. Makes you sound like you are still in prep school. Even the stupid first name as initial middle name as first name (T. Edward Soandso) is better.
  60. There are quite a few commenters here who write better than most of what I read from the NYT, WaPo and now the LA Times. ” Voters must stop him before the military has to,” he shrieked. And, LBJ said….” We’ll have these n*****r voting Dem for the next 200 years.”, but not racist speech and Bubba Bill actually lied under oath and I am pretty sure, contrary to James Comey, so did Hillary.

    • Replies: @Forbes

    I am pretty sure, contrary to James Comey, so did Hillary.
     
    AFAIK, they never put Hillary under oath, nor did they tape or use a stenographer in her interview. That's called going through the motion...
  61. @Rob McX

    If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.
     
    That's why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying "IMPEACH ME" on his back.

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.

    Maybe he figures that Republicans will want a Pence presidency even less than a Trump presidency, which would make Mike Pence Donald Trump’s insurance policy against impeachment and conviction.

    As I noted above, after Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself has lost its juju in American presidential politics. The Senate would have to convict, on top of an impeachment.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "As I noted above, after Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself has lost its juju in American presidential politics. The Senate would have to convict, on top of an impeachment."

    You failed to mention that "conviction" in the Senate requires a 2/3 vote "of the members present." If Trump is elected, I am sure the Republicans will retain control of the House and Senate. It is virtually unknown in the annals of the U.S. for a party controlling Congress to impeach and convict a President of its own party. Remember that the President who came closest to be convicted (spared by one vote in the Senate, earning the Senator from Kansas a chapter in JFK's "Profiles in Courage") was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln following Lincoln's assassination. Johnson had been a Democrat, chosen by Lincoln to replace his original Vice President in 1864.

    Anyone who remembers the tortuous proceedings against Richard Nixon, when there were clear grounds to impeach, realizes what an exercise in fantasy all this talk is about impeaching Donald Trump even before he got elected. Donald Trump has shown himself to be a risk taker, but he doesn't impress me as somebody who will risk taking a crazy action that might justify impeachment. He's much too savvy for that.
  62. You have to read articles like this in the context of the Party Line that is coming from Hillary HQ. They are currently pushing the poll tested meme that Trump is totally unfit to be President. So you don’t have to choose between odious Trump and equally odious Hillary (as many voters now feel). Rather, odious Hillary is the only viable candidate so you have no real choice but to vote for her even though she is odious.

    In the 2002 French election runoff, it was a choice between the corrupt Chirac and Le Pen. The leftists had been squeezed out in the 1st round. In order that Le Pen not win, the socialists came up with the slogan “vote for the crook, not the fascist”. This is where we are now.

    This is a desperate strategy that has been forced on the campaign by Hillary’s dismal poll numbers. It is not a sign of strength. The problem with this kind of argument is that it lowers the bar on what the other candidate has to prove. He no longer has to prove that he is the better candidate with the better policies. All he has to do is show you that he is not clinically insane and Hillary’s portrayal of him is falsified. Trump certainly has enough military support that he can drag out a few retired generals to say that they trust him with the nuclear keys.

    • Agree: PiltdownMan
    • Replies: @fnn

    “vote for the crook, not the fascist”
     
    They stole that from the Duke vs. Edwards campaign for Louisiana Governor.
    , @Hunsdon
    This echoes the Edwin Edwards/David Duke gubernatorial race in Louisiana back in the day. "Vote for the crook---it's important" was the slogan.
    , @Steve Sailer
    That was pretty much Carter's strategy in 1980.
  63. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    He is a WASP, a Presbyterian, and a successful businessman and real estate developer. He does throw around a lot of red meat for the masses, but it’s largely for show.

    He is less extremist than honored presidents such Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, or John Kennedy.

    And Jamie Kirchick isn’t going to foment a coup, he just likes to sound apocalyptic.

  64. @Harry Baldwin
    I like the idea of deporting all immediate family of terrorists who have immigrated here or have immigrant parents. Not saying it's doable, but in a sane world it would make sense, as would not allowing Muslims to immigrate here in the first place.

    What about bulldozing their houses? It works for Israel.

  65. @Hunsdon
    Oh come now! It's only Russia she's looking to pick a fight with. I mean, we show those dirty Bolshies a little truth, justice and the American way by splashing a few of their MIGs in Syria and they'll back right down. Won't they? I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

    That is a good point. It seems clear that only Trump understands the importance of not provoking the Russians

  66. @Lurker

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.
     
    I must say it would appear that the rank and file soldiery just didnt seem to have their hearts in the enterprise allowing themselves to disarmed and rounded up by civilians. A few mass shootings would have shown they meant business and Erdogan might have been toast. Maybe the senior ranks have become lazy, assuming a show of force was enough?

    The real Turkish army was gutted by Erdogan long ago.

    • Replies: @Chuck
    Any inside info on Erdogan? Is he a Spanish refugee?
  67. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    this guy is literally “muh constitution”

    please, old guy, leave us to fix your mess in peace

  68. @Lurker

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.
     
    I must say it would appear that the rank and file soldiery just didnt seem to have their hearts in the enterprise allowing themselves to disarmed and rounded up by civilians. A few mass shootings would have shown they meant business and Erdogan might have been toast. Maybe the senior ranks have become lazy, assuming a show of force was enough?

    Or the whole thing was a setup

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Exactly.
    , @Forbes
    Watching last Friday night's continuing live (and taped) coverage on CNN, it certainly looked like a hoax of a coup. People standing around in the streets talking to the soldiers. No protests, no counter-protests, no Molotov cocktails. And no undocumented shopping to fill the void in the absence political order. Chaos breeds chaos--and there was no chaos.

    More like Reichstag fire to consolidate power & control.
  69. @G pinfold
    Let me elaborate, lest anyone accuse me of simply pointing and spluttering from the right.
    My liberal-arts education 40 years ago was imbued with the idea that you're just blah, blah, blah till you've thrown a few Molotov Cocktails. The idea, as Marx said, was to change the world, not just talk about it.
    Young James may be seeking to burnish his credentials, at what he sees as a pivotal time in the Struggle for anti-badism. Egregious lust for violence from the left won't surprise anyone over 40.

    “My liberal-arts education 40 years ago was imbued with the idea that you’re just blah, blah, blah till you’ve thrown a few Molotov Cocktails.”

    Sounds like you were poorly educated.

    “Young James may be seeking to burnish his credentials, at what he sees as a pivotal time in the Struggle for anti-badism”

    But being a neocon homo, he just sits and hopes someone else does it for him.

  70. Trump is barely a nationalist and you get this kind of overreaction. What would they do if there was real, ideological nationalism?

    Bright side: Attempted coup would give the right an excellent opportunity to purge leftist elements from society.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Exactly. Trump is just bland, middle-of-the-road, consensus opinion from 1972. His positions would have been seen as nothing more than common sense back when we had a healthy society.
  71. @tbraton
    "Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?"

    You failed to mention two other Hillary initiatives. First, she has been advocating arming Ukraine, which Trump opposes. Secondly, she has been calling for "no-fly zones" over Syria, also opposed by Trump, which, apart from being illegal, threaten confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, which just happens to be in Syria legally at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria. I am, like you, astounded by the role reversal where the Hillary campaign is portraying Trump as the risky choice whereas she is the one going around proposing all these risky foreign ventures that carry heightened risk of nuclear war with Russia.

    I also recall in that Republican debate back in January when Hugh Hewitt tried to trap Trump with his question about the "nuclear triad." Later claiming that he didn't hear the question, Trump answered the "question" by riffing on the horrors of nuclear war. That hardly sounded to me like a man anxious to get his finger on the nuclear trigger just so he could launch a nuclear war with Russia. Although I concede that Trump probably had no idea what the "nuclear triad" was, I found his answer rather reassuring, whereas I found no reassurance in Senator Rubio's glib recital of what the nuclear triad was (I'm convinced that Hewitt, who was a Rubio supporter at one point, fed Rubio that question before the debate just so he would be ready to answer following the anticipated flub by Trump).

    I recall Hillary on video, Hillary laughing, while remarking on Quadaffi after his vicious death, “we came, we saw, he died.”

    It struck me as extremely lowbrow hillbilly shit for the Secretary of Defense of the United States to say something like that immediately after a man is shown bing torn apart by what amounts to regional gang members, like pitbulls ripping on a chicken, on video, despite whatever you think of him.

    She has some big disconnect in her head that’s disquieting to say the least. I honestly don’t see Trump doing that under those circumstances.

    Via multiple demonstrations, she actually personifies what libs fear about Trump.

    Cognitive dissonance is awesome.

    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Madame Bathory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory
  72. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    Gold Box!

  73. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    Perfection!

  74. @Hunsdon
    I am so tired of the Jamie Kirchiks of our wonkteriat.

    I don’t trust anything written by someone named Jamie. It’s not a real name. Makes you sound like you are still in prep school. Even the stupid first name as initial middle name as first name (T. Edward Soandso) is better.

  75. @Kudzu Bob
    And it is wonderful to hear from you as well. You are very kind.

    Please don’t be a stranger. This election year would be far more bearable with you here.

    • Replies: @Lovernios X
    Get a room! :)
  76. @andy russia

    just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …

     

    Rubio's a foreign leader now?

    Also, quod licet Jovi, etc.

    More like Quod licet Iudaei non licet Bovi

    What is permissible for Jews is forbidden to Goyim (cattle)

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Who leads le coup– Hillary? Aging whippersnapper Jamie? It is to laugh… A government-collapsing insurrection requires leadership from someone who compels the support — fervent, pragmatic, grudging, and otherwise — of affirmative-action low-level bureaucrats, police, semi-police, and a broad cross-section of the armed services (whose numbers are obviously dwarfed by the other groups). Ahmad Chalabi is dead so who are they supposed to install once they shell Triumph The Insult Candidate’s column? By the way, we are talking about someone who actually had planes & motorcades *before* he ever thought to run for prez. I don’t foresee Fieldmarschal Max Boot driving a tank up Capitol Hill any year soon unless it’s a miniature electric one in the Lockheed-General Dynamics Halloween parade

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Well, the Alinskyites THINK they're going to cobble together a force of Red Guards from the ghetto and the barrio. Remember Obama's "civilian national security force -- just as big and just as well-funded as the military"? However, history has repeatedly shown that the potential for sustained and effective military operations among these "folks" is extremely low. If both sides actually fight, it wouldn't be much of a contest
  78. Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit.

    Oh kids, I’m so scared for you! You have to behave and vote Hillary! The Boogeyman will jump out of the closet and swallow you in one gulp, bones and all, if you don’t!

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Yeah, vote for the wife of the guy who bombed Iraq for four days to get his Monica dalliance off the front page of the newspapers...
  79. @Harry Baldwin
    I like the idea of deporting all immediate family of terrorists who have immigrated here or have immigrant parents. Not saying it's doable, but in a sane world it would make sense, as would not allowing Muslims to immigrate here in the first place.

    Sounds like a policy Jamie Kirchick’s tribe would gladly embrace for Israel.

    The same tribe who would scream for a bloody military coup if this was even proposed for America.

  80. @Jack D
    You have to read articles like this in the context of the Party Line that is coming from Hillary HQ. They are currently pushing the poll tested meme that Trump is totally unfit to be President. So you don't have to choose between odious Trump and equally odious Hillary (as many voters now feel). Rather, odious Hillary is the only viable candidate so you have no real choice but to vote for her even though she is odious.

    In the 2002 French election runoff, it was a choice between the corrupt Chirac and Le Pen. The leftists had been squeezed out in the 1st round. In order that Le Pen not win, the socialists came up with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the fascist". This is where we are now.

    This is a desperate strategy that has been forced on the campaign by Hillary's dismal poll numbers. It is not a sign of strength. The problem with this kind of argument is that it lowers the bar on what the other candidate has to prove. He no longer has to prove that he is the better candidate with the better policies. All he has to do is show you that he is not clinically insane and Hillary's portrayal of him is falsified. Trump certainly has enough military support that he can drag out a few retired generals to say that they trust him with the nuclear keys.

    “vote for the crook, not the fascist”

    They stole that from the Duke vs. Edwards campaign for Louisiana Governor.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    You're right. The Edwards vs. Duke race was in 1991, long before the 2002 French election. I had forgotten how long ago that was.
  81. One good thing Trump is doing at this very moment — and has been doing for maybe a couple of weeks now — is nothing. He’s lying back, not intruding onto the scene to express his opinions, and generally looking measured and in control.

    The good thing is, he can see that his poll numbers are rising while he keeps his own counsel. This will encourage him to think that he doesn’t have to act as he did in the Republican primaries in order to win, but can instead, finally, take on the mantle of being Presidential and succeed in the general.

    This is the precise lesson he needs to learn, I think. More than anything else, it’s the wild man image that he must counteract. Hyperreactivity could be his fatal flaw.

  82. iSteveFan says:
    @Ed
    I guess someone should tell him the military supports him 2-1 over Clinton. I suspect the one consists of primarily black service personnel too.

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.

    I guess someone should tell him the military supports him 2-1 over Clinton.

    Isn’t it ironic that the war mongers who act like they are the final word on all things military attack the candidate whom the rank and file support the most. Even when Ron Paul ran four years ago, he was ridiculed for his defense positions. Yet he was receiving the most financial donations from active duty military members.

    There definitely is a disconnect between America’s military and her armchair generals.

  83. @neutral
    Is calling for a military coup allowed by US law ?

    IANAL, but from what I remember reading in Volokh’s First Amendment case law textbook*, you’re probably in the clear if you call for the revolution to take place at some indefinite time in the future; it would not be protected speech, however, to plan a coup for the coming weekend.

    * best drunken Amazon purchase ever

  84. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    It certainly wouldn’t be Seven Goys in May.

  85. @countenance
    A violent coup? With what? Remember, the left doesn't believe in guns.

    Our violent revolutionary fantasies are also non-starters, but the difference is that most of us know how to use guns, so that's why people take our delusions more seriously.

    I tend to think this article is either clickbait or eliminationism or both. Kirchick probably wants someone else to assassinate Trump to save him the trouble of trying to carry out his fantasies.

    A violent coup? With what? Remember, the left doesn’t believe in guns.

    Oh, the Left most certainly DOES believe in guns — as long as THEY have them, and YOU don’t. Remember Mao’s maxim “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” I think Mao qualified as a lefty…

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/06/professor-who-called-for-shooting-up-nra-under-investigation/

  86. @neutral
    Is calling for a military coup allowed by US law ?

    Sure, it’s allowed. No end of stupid things are allowed.

    Though it’s kind of hilarious to hear progressives passive-aggressively wish-hoping for a coup after claiming for years that gun owners are “insurrectionist.”

  87. @Rob McX
    Consider the words of Chief of Staff General Casey after 13 people were massacred at Fort Hood:

    And as horrific as this tragedy [sic] was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
     
    Doesn't inspire much faith in the military, does it?

    I’ve seen this quote a lot and have finally realized that in a profession where your government is likely at any time to send you into the Muslim world where you are going to have to do business with the local governments, you are probably going to think this way.

  88. Kirchick and Kohn lead the Jewish/LGBT (JLGBT?) “pinkshirt” paramilitaries in a “March on DC”

  89. @Jack D
    You have to read articles like this in the context of the Party Line that is coming from Hillary HQ. They are currently pushing the poll tested meme that Trump is totally unfit to be President. So you don't have to choose between odious Trump and equally odious Hillary (as many voters now feel). Rather, odious Hillary is the only viable candidate so you have no real choice but to vote for her even though she is odious.

    In the 2002 French election runoff, it was a choice between the corrupt Chirac and Le Pen. The leftists had been squeezed out in the 1st round. In order that Le Pen not win, the socialists came up with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the fascist". This is where we are now.

    This is a desperate strategy that has been forced on the campaign by Hillary's dismal poll numbers. It is not a sign of strength. The problem with this kind of argument is that it lowers the bar on what the other candidate has to prove. He no longer has to prove that he is the better candidate with the better policies. All he has to do is show you that he is not clinically insane and Hillary's portrayal of him is falsified. Trump certainly has enough military support that he can drag out a few retired generals to say that they trust him with the nuclear keys.

    This echoes the Edwin Edwards/David Duke gubernatorial race in Louisiana back in the day. “Vote for the crook—it’s important” was the slogan.

    • Agree: tbraton
  90. Even as cucked as today’s military is, ljl.

  91. Is this the creep who staged the RT on-air ‘resignation’ of anchor ‘I am an American’ Wahl ?

    A Sorosian t**t – and a world-class Gay inc. troll.

    If its not , apologies.

    But the Andrew Sullivan connection speaks volumes….

  92. @Kylie
    Please don't be a stranger. This election year would be far more bearable with you here.

    Get a room! 🙂

  93. Don’t underestimate the Queen Berets
    Queen Berets

    Fighting soldiers on heels high
    Fearless men’s hair purple dye
    Men who are mean as they sashay
    The brave femen of the Queen Beret

    Silver balloons as fake breast
    These are men, America’s left behest
    One hundred men we’ll HIV test today
    But only thirty three win the Queen Beret

    Trained to live, off welfare’s land
    Trained in combat, purse to hand
    Men who dance by night and day
    Bathroom Creep, from the Queen Beret

  94. “Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her”

    That leader better run if he finds he has gotten on a small plane with 50 women raped by Bill C, or passes out on railroad tracks.

  95. A real coup would involve the elitists to actually mobilize and use weapons to oust President Trump. An army of Kagans, Kirchicks and Kristols is going to be sorely lacking in such people who have fired real weapons. Vaunted would be candidate David “JAG” French isn’t going to be much help unless they can moot court Trump out of the White House.But could have the makings of a great sitcom.

  96. @EriK

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.
     
    Apparently it's not illegal if caused by a drone "targeting" error.

    Were the bombing campaigns of WW2 in Europe and Japan illegal? They certainly targeted civilian populations.

  97. @Beliavsky
    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal. He has talked of judges passing bills. He has threatened to "open up" libel laws to put newspapers such as the Washington Post that criticize him out of business. In general, he is an ignorant man who does show signs that he recognizes the constitutional limits of the office he is seeking. If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things, and I hope the military and bureaucracy would refuse to carry out illegal orders.

    Obama ordered an illegal amnesty, which the Supreme Court has blocked in a 4-4 decision. If government workers refused to carry out his illegal orders on immigration and other subjects, would that be a coup?

    Since Trump says enough critical things about immigrants, Steve ignores his other glaring flaws.

    Are you saying that Hillary “Black Lives Matter” Clinton would be a better president than Trump?

  98. @Rob McX
    Consider the words of Chief of Staff General Casey after 13 people were massacred at Fort Hood:

    And as horrific as this tragedy [sic] was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
     
    Doesn't inspire much faith in the military, does it?

    I’m pretty sure he wasn’t speaking for the rank and file members of our military. He was probably just saying what he had been ordered to say.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    The rank and file aren't much better in my experience.
  99. @PiltdownMan

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.
     
    Maybe he figures that Republicans will want a Pence presidency even less than a Trump presidency, which would make Mike Pence Donald Trump's insurance policy against impeachment and conviction.

    As I noted above, after Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself has lost its juju in American presidential politics. The Senate would have to convict, on top of an impeachment.

    “As I noted above, after Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself has lost its juju in American presidential politics. The Senate would have to convict, on top of an impeachment.”

    You failed to mention that “conviction” in the Senate requires a 2/3 vote “of the members present.” If Trump is elected, I am sure the Republicans will retain control of the House and Senate. It is virtually unknown in the annals of the U.S. for a party controlling Congress to impeach and convict a President of its own party. Remember that the President who came closest to be convicted (spared by one vote in the Senate, earning the Senator from Kansas a chapter in JFK’s “Profiles in Courage”) was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln following Lincoln’s assassination. Johnson had been a Democrat, chosen by Lincoln to replace his original Vice President in 1864.

    Anyone who remembers the tortuous proceedings against Richard Nixon, when there were clear grounds to impeach, realizes what an exercise in fantasy all this talk is about impeaching Donald Trump even before he got elected. Donald Trump has shown himself to be a risk taker, but he doesn’t impress me as somebody who will risk taking a crazy action that might justify impeachment. He’s much too savvy for that.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    It is virtually unknown in the annals of the U.S. for a party controlling Congress to impeach and convict a President of its own party.
     
    True. But it is also unknown in modern times for a dominant nominee for candidate for Presidency to be so undermined by his own political party establishment on the way to the convention, and at the convention.

    Trump has broader support than the party grandees like to acknowledge, and if he is elected, the old guard will look for opportunities to lash back.

    I agree that impeachment etc. scenarios are mostly fantasies generated by Hillary supporters.

    He's not going to shoot himself in the foot—he's savvy enough for that. But bi-partisan momentum for impeachment and conviction can't be entirely ruled out if things go badly wrong for a President Trump. The knives will be out on both sides of the aisle. Cruz' speech today should tell you that there is a lot of seething animus among powerful Republicans for Donald Trump.

  100. Good example of gaslighting/retconning in plain sight by Kirchik with the hands reference. Trump actually didn’t lose his cool at all when Rubio drew attention to Trump’s hands, but the media acted (in suspicious unison) as if Trump had. That Kirchik was able to tie the lie to a dishonest-hypothesized-suggestion that Trump would instigate a war over such a slight from a foreign dignatary shows Kirchik thought about how to use that lie most effectivley.

    Wonder if Colbert will try and reinforce this myth.

  101. @Lurker

    If Trump became president, he would probably try to do illegal things
     
    Phew, it's lucky that no establishment politician would ever do such a thing. Like, I dunno, maintain a private email server for example. Would never happen.

    Yeah, or: 1. Provide military aid to a military regime (Egypt) which gained power through a coup against an elected civilian government, a violation of U.S. law. 2. Refuse to enforce statutory U.S. immigration law (“He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”– Article II, U.S. Constitution). Bomb a Doctors Without Borders (“MSF”) hospital in Afghanistan (a war crime under international law). 3. Execute “suspected” terrorists by drone strike without due process of law. 4. Read the emails of U.S. citizens without judicial warrant (in violation of the 4th Amendment). Search all passengers boarding a commercial aircraft, a violation of the Constitutional doctrine of “probable cause” (4th Amendment again).

  102. @countenance
    A violent coup? With what? Remember, the left doesn't believe in guns.

    Our violent revolutionary fantasies are also non-starters, but the difference is that most of us know how to use guns, so that's why people take our delusions more seriously.

    I tend to think this article is either clickbait or eliminationism or both. Kirchick probably wants someone else to assassinate Trump to save him the trouble of trying to carry out his fantasies.

    The left doesn’t believe in guns until they need them.

  103. @neutral
    Is calling for a military coup allowed by US law ?

    It’ depends:

    If the Left is doing it….then Yes, because either (1) we were founded on revolution, comrade!; or (2) it’s not a revolution, it’s just take it back from those evil, democratically-elected dictator-usurpers.

    If the non-Left is doing it….then NO! Arrest these seditious, unAmerican rebels immediately!

    Who…Whom?

  104. I know it’s a bit fun to laugh at the wussy lefties of today trying to revolt against our he Republican-voting, battle-hardened, gun-toting, Christian troops….

    But….a few points to raise our alarm:

    (1) remember the Left has often successfully rebelled/fought a nation’s armies, and then overcame them. Militaries, for better or for worse, are willing to capitulate and become tools of TPTB, whomever that is. The Wehrmacht and the Red Army both quickly became tools of the Left. Professional military men are more obedient than the average dude.

    (2) The military has already rolled over repeatedly for the Left. Open homosexuality, trannism, female “fighters”, gay “marriage”, etc. have all been embraced with nary a peep.

    (3) The Left doesn’t need to beat the army in the field, it merely needs to seize power. A quick seizure followed by a mass media project of “legitimization” works wonders. Look how Comey’s abjuring of duty to recommend prosecute was quickly legitimized as “Comey saving the election for the voters.”

    (4) Lefties have their own quiet paramilitary organizations. They have their own guerrilla tactics manuals. And they aren’t afraid of the kind of civilian/innocent slaughter many military men abhor. They are much closer in kind to ISIS and Al-Queda than a professional army.

    (5) They already own the FBI. So they have enough manpower and information to make the seizure, and know that they will have no resistance (and, indeed, support from) from the nation’s largest armed domestic police force.

    (6) remember that the left loves using unprofessional mobs to keep people from organizing against them. The Germans used the Ernie Rohm-gay gangs to assault opponents; today, the Left has the mindless, murderous black mobs/Panthers to do so.

    (7) George Soros as a major funding source for the coup. Remember: so long as supplies are there, they can survive..

    When a Lefty calls for a coup, try not to think of the cowards you know individually leading the way with an organized plan, but a mob of crazed lunatics armed with bombs released from the nuthouse holing up in government offices and gang-attacking innocents on the street to keep the populace in fear.

    • Agree: BB753, dfordoom
    • Replies: @BB753
    Not to mention that the police would side with the establishment and won't hesitate to shoot at Trump supporters. They know which side their bread is buttered, just like the military.
  105. Genius wunderkind Kirchick apparently failed to notice the Army Times polling showing the Armed Forces breaking to 2-1 for the Bad Boy. Apparently, someone wants to make America Great Again, even if its not Conservative, Inc.

  106. @neutral
    Is calling for a military coup allowed by US law ?

    Well, when you are a snivelling little homosexual with Jewish ancestry like Kirchick, you can say or do anything apparently.

  107. @Simon in London
    "President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …"

    I think he made a mistake getting people to contemplate for what trivial reasons Hillary might order an attack on a foreign country. Judging by Serbia & Libya the precedents are not good.

    We know the reasons she’d go to war: democracy, freedom, human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, minority du jour rights, global U.S. hegemony in order to implement the New World Order, etc.

  108. A “Military coup”?????

    I think SOMEONE has a book coming out . . .

    Article Post script:
    “James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Initiative. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.”

    BOOM!! Nailed it!

  109. Little Jamie must really want to cultivate a poor imitation of Norman Podhoretz.

  110. Politics these days–the parasites bad mouthing the host.

  111. @Rob McX

    If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.
     
    That's why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying "IMPEACH ME" on his back.

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.

    But how would he defend against that? By choosing a VP candidate so much worse than him, in the eyes of the enemy, that Trump becomes preferable, to them?

    He can’t be impeached if he never makes it into office in the first place. It looks like it’s going to be close.

    Wrong tactical choice of VP = guaranteed ‘self-impeachment’. Best available choice of VP (tactically) = (remote) possibility of impeachment.

    He has to focus on the obstacle directly in front of him. Pence was the best option available for making it past. What comes after, comes, and can’t be predicted.

    And, as noted, Clinton ignored his (House) impeachment. What are the chances Trump wouldn’t, to the point of having to be dragged out, kicking and screaming (‘treason’)?

    And even if he was, they would do more damage to their cause than letting him serve and inevitably disappoint.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Trump can and should replace Pence as VP candidate when he runs for re-election in 2020.
  112. @Rob McX
    Consider the words of Chief of Staff General Casey after 13 people were massacred at Fort Hood:

    And as horrific as this tragedy [sic] was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
     
    Doesn't inspire much faith in the military, does it?

    Doesn’t inspire much faith in the military, does it?

    No, but when I think about the fact that they are trying to convert the military into a global police force, enforcing a globalist agenda, I don’t expect anything different.

    On one hand I’m glad I’m old and don’t have to see the coming catastrophes in full bloom, on the other I wish I could be around to laugh at these fools when it all turns to ashes.

  113. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    A prominent French Socialist politician said the same thing, should Marine Le Pen win the elections next year.

    On one hand, wishful thinking. In both countries officers and the military on average might actually support the nationalist candidates. On the other hand, frightening how our elites are openly advocating for a military coup and basically threatening voters with martial law unless voters comply and vote for the establishment candidates.

    The difference is that France is culturally Catholic and Continental, with a tradition of authoritarianism, from royal absolutism before the Revolution to the French Empire. The French military also tends to be more Catholic, more authoritarian, and less sympathetic to Republicanism.

    By contrast, in the US, there is still enough of a British descended, culturally “Roundhead” population in the military and outside of it that will reflexively oppose any royalist or caudillismo pretensions on the part of a Trump that opposes “Parliament”.

  114. @International Jew
    The real Turkish army was gutted by Erdogan long ago.

    Any inside info on Erdogan? Is he a Spanish refugee?

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Why are you asking me? Do you mean, is he a descendant of Jews expelled from Spain in 1492? And using the whole Islamic/Islamist/Anti-Israel thing as a front to keep his Judaism secret?

    Lemme check with my rabbi and get back to you. If there were such a conspiracy going on, I should be told about it considering how much I contribute to the synagogue each year.
  115. @Simon in London
    "President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. …"

    I think he made a mistake getting people to contemplate for what trivial reasons Hillary might order an attack on a foreign country. Judging by Serbia & Libya the precedents are not good.

    As an RF Laird punk close to the age of our host, the one thing I have consistently observed for the past 35 years among Democrat Boomers and their lib-prog offshoots is their propensity to throw under the bus every last person and issue they ever championed.

    I don’t see this so much as an abandonment of their principles as the fact that they never had them in the first place. Their principles were for display, to differentiate themselves from others upon whom they projected various traits, in order to build demographic bases for their climb to power.

    So with nukes/anti-nukes.

    I grew up in the land of my 17th century ancestors, which by the 1960s and 1970s was the #2 strategic target for Soviet ICBMs. So this was a prominent and intimate daily issue for us. Pretty hard on an intelligent kid. And we were still doing school duck and cover drills in the late 1960s.

    Various observations and awakenings led me to conclude by age 28 something radically HBD:

    If nuclear weapons had been in the hands of any policymakers and military leaders OTHER THAN white men of Northern European ancestry with plus-mean (but not too high) IQs, forward thinking, impulse control, ability to subsume emotion to reason, etc., operating within robust, homogeneous, functioning organizational contexts–nukes would have been used.

    This is my #2 reason for rejecting Hillary Rodham. After #1 reason (SCOTUS appointments) and Zeroth reason (she’s the love child of Lady Macbeth and Beelzebub).

  116. @Diversity Heretic
    I saw this on an earlier thread and commented that I think this is projection on the part of Hillary supporters. A coup is more likely (although still very unlikely) in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency gone disastrously awry (millions of refugees; possible losing wars against Russia; cities in flame and a crashing economy) than against a Trump Administration.

    I wondered how Jamie Kirchick would had reacted if someone had written:”If Hillary wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.?” 😉

  117. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    My concern about this election is that the left is so out of their minds that this may be the first election in which we see large-scale vote fraud of the type that third-world countries have. There’s always been some before, but this time, I predict the left is going to decide that this is important enough that they will try to stuff ballot boxes and rig voting machines on a never-seen-before scale.

    Interesting times.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  118. @Cletus Rothschild
    " If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things — from open racism to blatant lying. "

    So Kirchick believes it's plausible that the United States government could be overthrown because Donald Trump has normalized . . . . . saying stuff.

    I don't really need to elaborate, but Kirchick actually suggested that "blatant lying" was not already normal for politicians. So which of these is Kirchick not aware: Iraq has WMDs? The blue dress? "I am not a crook"? "They hate us for our freedoms"? "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base"? "Assad has not joined Hitler and Hussein"?

    Ditzkreig,……” consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things…..” like gay marriage, non gender bathrooms, trans in the military, combat roles for women, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, nukes for Iran……Oh wait, that was Obama, but…”Look, a squirrel.”

    • Replies: @Cletus Rothschild
    Why are you using my quote of the author's quote -- which I clearly have an issue with -- and treating it as though it were mine?
  119. @27 year old
    Or the whole thing was a setup

    Exactly.

  120. @Kudzu Bob
    That figures. The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.

    Stop! My ribs! You’re killin’ me!

  121. Very off-topic but I must say that I much prefer the quotation on the poster, “these United States.”

    “The United States” sounds so blah and ordinary but then again I’m a liberal-libertarian confederalism (I’m all about the Imperial Commonwealth in the wake of Brexit).

  122. @Ed
    I guess someone should tell him the military supports him 2-1 over Clinton. I suspect the one consists of primarily black service personnel too.

    At any rate as events in Turkey played out last week, it pays to have cops & young right wing guys on your side during a coup.

    It would be interesting to see that stat broken down into combat arms personnel vs. support services. As you get closer to the tip of the spear, you get an overwhelming preponderance of stale pale males. I believe the SEALs are 2% black, Army SF is 5% black, and blacks are virtually nonexistent in USAF PJ’s and combat controllers. I wonder who all those blue-eyed devils support for PREZ?

  123. @mobi

    That’s why his choice of VP is impossible to understand. He might as well be sticking a sign saying “IMPEACH ME” on his back.

     

    But how would he defend against that? By choosing a VP candidate so much worse than him, in the eyes of the enemy, that Trump becomes preferable, to them?

    He can't be impeached if he never makes it into office in the first place. It looks like it's going to be close.

    Wrong tactical choice of VP = guaranteed 'self-impeachment'. Best available choice of VP (tactically) = (remote) possibility of impeachment.

    He has to focus on the obstacle directly in front of him. Pence was the best option available for making it past. What comes after, comes, and can't be predicted.

    And, as noted, Clinton ignored his (House) impeachment. What are the chances Trump wouldn't, to the point of having to be dragged out, kicking and screaming ('treason')?

    And even if he was, they would do more damage to their cause than letting him serve and inevitably disappoint.

    Trump can and should replace Pence as VP candidate when he runs for re-election in 2020.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Trump/Trump in 2020! Perfect Vision!
  124. @Diversity Heretic
    I saw this on an earlier thread and commented that I think this is projection on the part of Hillary supporters. A coup is more likely (although still very unlikely) in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency gone disastrously awry (millions of refugees; possible losing wars against Russia; cities in flame and a crashing economy) than against a Trump Administration.

    A pity that we are left with these two from which to chose. On balance, however, I think Trump would be a better choice for the very reasons you state. This woman has no scruples whatsoever.

  125. Only an idiot liberal with no experience dealing with US armed services personnel would be stupid enough to think that our military would participate in a coup versus a President Trump.

    EVERY position of consequence in our military is still filled by a conservative, straight white male.

    If a coup happens it will be against Obama during his last few months in office.

  126. @Forbes
    The 'nuclear triad' question was cold war era jargon left over from the '80s. Maybe a round of questions from Trivial Pursuit ?

    As I posted at the time, https://www.unz.com/isteve/slate-rises-to-trumps-challenge-muslim-clerics-need-higher-pay/#comment-1264679 and https://www.unz.com/isteve/republican-debate-open-thread/#comment-1320119, Hewitt’s “question” about the “nuclear triad” was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. I have known about the “nuclear triad” since I was in college 50 years ago, and I am ready to concede that Trump may not have been familiar with the term. But, in posing the “question” to Trump, Hewitt also announced that he was going to follow-up with the same question to Senator Rubio, which he did. (“Wake Up Call, Marco. Be ready to answer because you’re next.”) It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio, something that wasn’t revealed before the Las Vegas debate in December. Nor was there any mention at a subsequent debate a few weeks later where Hewitt was again one of the questioners of any endorsement of Rubio by him. Rubio’s answer was so precise that I jumped to the conclusion that he must have been fed the question by Hewitt before the debate. The whole thing smelled like a prearranged plot to sabotage Trump’s candidacy. As I stated at the time, Trump’s lack of knowledge about the “nuclear triad” did not serve as a disqualification of his candidacy, nor did Rubio’s glib recital of the meaning of “nuclear triad” (which was absolutely accurate) make me any more comfortable with Rubio’s neoconnish foreign policy that I was familiar with (being a Florida resident) from the time he ran for the Senate in 2010.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Hewitt’s “question” about the “nuclear triad” was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. . . . It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio.

     

    Hewitt's established a pattern of trying to litmus-test his interviewees -- I wouldn't exactly call it ambushing; the questions he asks new interviewees are nearly always the same -- and he's tried it several times with Trump on his radio show. Hugh is also a total GOP insider who was pushing hard for Rubio. Even if Hewitt didn't feed the question to Rubio, Rubio had been on his show many, many times, and Rubio or his staff should have been ready for a short list of Hewitt questions at the debate. Frankly, Trump and/or his staff should have seen this one coming as well.
  127. @Glossy
    His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.

    That title sounds like another, even more serious, threat.

    Christopher Caldwell already wrote that book in 2009.

  128. @whorefinder
    I know it's a bit fun to laugh at the wussy lefties of today trying to revolt against our he Republican-voting, battle-hardened, gun-toting, Christian troops....

    But....a few points to raise our alarm:


    (1) remember the Left has often successfully rebelled/fought a nation's armies, and then overcame them. Militaries, for better or for worse, are willing to capitulate and become tools of TPTB, whomever that is. The Wehrmacht and the Red Army both quickly became tools of the Left. Professional military men are more obedient than the average dude.

    (2) The military has already rolled over repeatedly for the Left. Open homosexuality, trannism, female "fighters", gay "marriage", etc. have all been embraced with nary a peep.

    (3) The Left doesn't need to beat the army in the field, it merely needs to seize power. A quick seizure followed by a mass media project of "legitimization" works wonders. Look how Comey's abjuring of duty to recommend prosecute was quickly legitimized as "Comey saving the election for the voters."

    (4) Lefties have their own quiet paramilitary organizations. They have their own guerrilla tactics manuals. And they aren't afraid of the kind of civilian/innocent slaughter many military men abhor. They are much closer in kind to ISIS and Al-Queda than a professional army.

    (5) They already own the FBI. So they have enough manpower and information to make the seizure, and know that they will have no resistance (and, indeed, support from) from the nation's largest armed domestic police force.

    (6) remember that the left loves using unprofessional mobs to keep people from organizing against them. The Germans used the Ernie Rohm-gay gangs to assault opponents; today, the Left has the mindless, murderous black mobs/Panthers to do so.

    (7) George Soros as a major funding source for the coup. Remember: so long as supplies are there, they can survive..

    When a Lefty calls for a coup, try not to think of the cowards you know individually leading the way with an organized plan, but a mob of crazed lunatics armed with bombs released from the nuthouse holing up in government offices and gang-attacking innocents on the street to keep the populace in fear.

    Not to mention that the police would side with the establishment and won’t hesitate to shoot at Trump supporters. They know which side their bread is buttered, just like the military.

    • Replies: @mobi
    The Coalition of the Fringes are losing 'the police card' by the day.

    They're so up themselves, it doesn't seem to even occur to them that they should be worried about this.

    Good.
  129. @fnn

    “vote for the crook, not the fascist”
     
    They stole that from the Duke vs. Edwards campaign for Louisiana Governor.

    You’re right. The Edwards vs. Duke race was in 1991, long before the 2002 French election. I had forgotten how long ago that was.

  130. @27 year old
    Or the whole thing was a setup

    Watching last Friday night’s continuing live (and taped) coverage on CNN, it certainly looked like a hoax of a coup. People standing around in the streets talking to the soldiers. No protests, no counter-protests, no Molotov cocktails. And no undocumented shopping to fill the void in the absence political order. Chaos breeds chaos–and there was no chaos.

    More like Reichstag fire to consolidate power & control.

  131. @Barnard
    Based on everything that has been reported, it sounds like Trump was pressured into taking Pence. Financial backing was probably contingent on him picking an establishment VP and Trump felt like he had to do it.

    Based on everything that has been reported…

    Yeah, cuz lapdog media surmise and speculation has been so crystal ball-like this election cycle.

  132. @Buffalo Joe
    There are quite a few commenters here who write better than most of what I read from the NYT, WaPo and now the LA Times. " Voters must stop him before the military has to," he shrieked. And, LBJ said...." We'll have these n*****r voting Dem for the next 200 years.", but not racist speech and Bubba Bill actually lied under oath and I am pretty sure, contrary to James Comey, so did Hillary.

    I am pretty sure, contrary to James Comey, so did Hillary.

    AFAIK, they never put Hillary under oath, nor did they tape or use a stenographer in her interview. That’s called going through the motion…

  133. Do they still hang people for treason?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Sadly, no. Otherwise Pollard, Ames, Hanssen, Walker, etc would have been dead long ago. I would have gladly been on the firing squad or pulled the trap door lever.
  134. @candid_observer

    Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit.
     
    Oh kids, I'm so scared for you! You have to behave and vote Hillary! The Boogeyman will jump out of the closet and swallow you in one gulp, bones and all, if you don't!

    Yeah, vote for the wife of the guy who bombed Iraq for four days to get his Monica dalliance off the front page of the newspapers…

  135. Trump had better watch out for this guy.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    You mean Putin?
  136. @Jason Liu
    Trump is barely a nationalist and you get this kind of overreaction. What would they do if there was real, ideological nationalism?

    Bright side: Attempted coup would give the right an excellent opportunity to purge leftist elements from society.

    Exactly. Trump is just bland, middle-of-the-road, consensus opinion from 1972. His positions would have been seen as nothing more than common sense back when we had a healthy society.

  137. @yowza
    I recall Hillary on video, Hillary laughing, while remarking on Quadaffi after his vicious death, "we came, we saw, he died."

    It struck me as extremely lowbrow hillbilly shit for the Secretary of Defense of the United States to say something like that immediately after a man is shown bing torn apart by what amounts to regional gang members, like pitbulls ripping on a chicken, on video, despite whatever you think of him.

    She has some big disconnect in her head that's disquieting to say the least. I honestly don't see Trump doing that under those circumstances.

    Via multiple demonstrations, she actually personifies what libs fear about Trump.

    Cognitive dissonance is awesome.
  138. @Joe Walker
    I'm pretty sure he wasn't speaking for the rank and file members of our military. He was probably just saying what he had been ordered to say.

    The rank and file aren’t much better in my experience.

  139. @Anonymous
    Who leads le coup-- Hillary? Aging whippersnapper Jamie? It is to laugh... A government-collapsing insurrection requires leadership from someone who compels the support -- fervent, pragmatic, grudging, and otherwise -- of affirmative-action low-level bureaucrats, police, semi-police, and a broad cross-section of the armed services (whose numbers are obviously dwarfed by the other groups). Ahmad Chalabi is dead so who are they supposed to install once they shell Triumph The Insult Candidate's column? By the way, we are talking about someone who actually had planes & motorcades *before* he ever thought to run for prez. I don't foresee Fieldmarschal Max Boot driving a tank up Capitol Hill any year soon unless it's a miniature electric one in the Lockheed-General Dynamics Halloween parade

    Well, the Alinskyites THINK they’re going to cobble together a force of Red Guards from the ghetto and the barrio. Remember Obama’s “civilian national security force — just as big and just as well-funded as the military”? However, history has repeatedly shown that the potential for sustained and effective military operations among these “folks” is extremely low. If both sides actually fight, it wouldn’t be much of a contest

  140. @5371
    A Jewish passive homosexual who has never handled a weapon in his life is threatening a military coup?

    The term of art is passive-aggressive. “Let’s you and him fight.” From time to time throughout history, instigating lil’ imps like Kirchick are slammed by severe blowback of the less than pleasurable variety. I’ve got a funny feeling we are on the threshold of one of those cycles.

  141. @Rob McX
    Trump had better watch out for this guy.

    You mean Putin?

  142. @James O'Meara
    Yeah, gotta keep them Alexanders out. Otherwise, we might wind up winning a war, maybe even the whole known world.

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington's staff?

    Or ever ... read?

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington’s staff?

    I heard that motherfucker, had like, 30 goddamn dicks.

    He once held an opponent’s wife’s hand in a… jar of acid. At a party.

  143. Trumps enemies will come to respect the power of the presidency.

  144. @Buffalo Joe
    Ditzkreig,......" consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things....." like gay marriage, non gender bathrooms, trans in the military, combat roles for women, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, nukes for Iran......Oh wait, that was Obama, but..."Look, a squirrel."

    Why are you using my quote of the author’s quote — which I clearly have an issue with — and treating it as though it were mine?

  145. @tbraton
    As I posted at the time, https://www.unz.com/isteve/slate-rises-to-trumps-challenge-muslim-clerics-need-higher-pay/#comment-1264679 and https://www.unz.com/isteve/republican-debate-open-thread/#comment-1320119, Hewitt's "question" about the "nuclear triad" was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. I have known about the "nuclear triad" since I was in college 50 years ago, and I am ready to concede that Trump may not have been familiar with the term. But, in posing the "question" to Trump, Hewitt also announced that he was going to follow-up with the same question to Senator Rubio, which he did. ("Wake Up Call, Marco. Be ready to answer because you're next.") It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio, something that wasn't revealed before the Las Vegas debate in December. Nor was there any mention at a subsequent debate a few weeks later where Hewitt was again one of the questioners of any endorsement of Rubio by him. Rubio's answer was so precise that I jumped to the conclusion that he must have been fed the question by Hewitt before the debate. The whole thing smelled like a prearranged plot to sabotage Trump's candidacy. As I stated at the time, Trump's lack of knowledge about the "nuclear triad" did not serve as a disqualification of his candidacy, nor did Rubio's glib recital of the meaning of "nuclear triad" (which was absolutely accurate) make me any more comfortable with Rubio's neoconnish foreign policy that I was familiar with (being a Florida resident) from the time he ran for the Senate in 2010.

    Hewitt’s “question” about the “nuclear triad” was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. . . . It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio.

    Hewitt’s established a pattern of trying to litmus-test his interviewees — I wouldn’t exactly call it ambushing; the questions he asks new interviewees are nearly always the same — and he’s tried it several times with Trump on his radio show. Hugh is also a total GOP insider who was pushing hard for Rubio. Even if Hewitt didn’t feed the question to Rubio, Rubio had been on his show many, many times, and Rubio or his staff should have been ready for a short list of Hewitt questions at the debate. Frankly, Trump and/or his staff should have seen this one coming as well.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Thanks for the additional information about Hewitt. I'm not surprised by your statement that he "was pushing hard for Rubio." That was my sense, but I appreciate your confirmation of what I suspected. I also agree that Trump or his staff should have anticipated the question on the triad, but I was startled to learn from a May article in the Sunday NY Times magazine article on the Trump campaign about how truly lean and spare his "campaign organization" was.
  146. @Jack D
    You have to read articles like this in the context of the Party Line that is coming from Hillary HQ. They are currently pushing the poll tested meme that Trump is totally unfit to be President. So you don't have to choose between odious Trump and equally odious Hillary (as many voters now feel). Rather, odious Hillary is the only viable candidate so you have no real choice but to vote for her even though she is odious.

    In the 2002 French election runoff, it was a choice between the corrupt Chirac and Le Pen. The leftists had been squeezed out in the 1st round. In order that Le Pen not win, the socialists came up with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the fascist". This is where we are now.

    This is a desperate strategy that has been forced on the campaign by Hillary's dismal poll numbers. It is not a sign of strength. The problem with this kind of argument is that it lowers the bar on what the other candidate has to prove. He no longer has to prove that he is the better candidate with the better policies. All he has to do is show you that he is not clinically insane and Hillary's portrayal of him is falsified. Trump certainly has enough military support that he can drag out a few retired generals to say that they trust him with the nuclear keys.

    That was pretty much Carter’s strategy in 1980.

  147. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Hewitt’s “question” about the “nuclear triad” was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. . . . It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio.

     

    Hewitt's established a pattern of trying to litmus-test his interviewees -- I wouldn't exactly call it ambushing; the questions he asks new interviewees are nearly always the same -- and he's tried it several times with Trump on his radio show. Hugh is also a total GOP insider who was pushing hard for Rubio. Even if Hewitt didn't feed the question to Rubio, Rubio had been on his show many, many times, and Rubio or his staff should have been ready for a short list of Hewitt questions at the debate. Frankly, Trump and/or his staff should have seen this one coming as well.

    Thanks for the additional information about Hewitt. I’m not surprised by your statement that he “was pushing hard for Rubio.” That was my sense, but I appreciate your confirmation of what I suspected. I also agree that Trump or his staff should have anticipated the question on the triad, but I was startled to learn from a May article in the Sunday NY Times magazine article on the Trump campaign about how truly lean and spare his “campaign organization” was.

  148. @James O'Meara
    Yeah, gotta keep them Alexanders out. Otherwise, we might wind up winning a war, maybe even the whole known world.

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington's staff?

    Or ever ... read?

    Or ever … read?

    Funny that you should ask. Just this week I downloaded a collection of essays titled Green Nazis in Space! onto my Kindle. So far it is very enjoyable, particularly the pieces dealing with The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and Harper Lee. The author is very intelligent and would seem to have a healthy sense of humor.

  149. @BB753
    Not to mention that the police would side with the establishment and won't hesitate to shoot at Trump supporters. They know which side their bread is buttered, just like the military.

    The Coalition of the Fringes are losing ‘the police card’ by the day.

    They’re so up themselves, it doesn’t seem to even occur to them that they should be worried about this.

    Good.

  150. @EriK

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.
     
    Apparently it's not illegal if caused by a drone "targeting" error.

    Indeed, didn’t Obama once brag about all the civilians he had killed with drones while killing a few “terrorists” too?!

  151. @tbraton
    "As I noted above, after Bill Clinton, impeachment by itself has lost its juju in American presidential politics. The Senate would have to convict, on top of an impeachment."

    You failed to mention that "conviction" in the Senate requires a 2/3 vote "of the members present." If Trump is elected, I am sure the Republicans will retain control of the House and Senate. It is virtually unknown in the annals of the U.S. for a party controlling Congress to impeach and convict a President of its own party. Remember that the President who came closest to be convicted (spared by one vote in the Senate, earning the Senator from Kansas a chapter in JFK's "Profiles in Courage") was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln following Lincoln's assassination. Johnson had been a Democrat, chosen by Lincoln to replace his original Vice President in 1864.

    Anyone who remembers the tortuous proceedings against Richard Nixon, when there were clear grounds to impeach, realizes what an exercise in fantasy all this talk is about impeaching Donald Trump even before he got elected. Donald Trump has shown himself to be a risk taker, but he doesn't impress me as somebody who will risk taking a crazy action that might justify impeachment. He's much too savvy for that.

    It is virtually unknown in the annals of the U.S. for a party controlling Congress to impeach and convict a President of its own party.

    True. But it is also unknown in modern times for a dominant nominee for candidate for Presidency to be so undermined by his own political party establishment on the way to the convention, and at the convention.

    Trump has broader support than the party grandees like to acknowledge, and if he is elected, the old guard will look for opportunities to lash back.

    I agree that impeachment etc. scenarios are mostly fantasies generated by Hillary supporters.

    He’s not going to shoot himself in the foot—he’s savvy enough for that. But bi-partisan momentum for impeachment and conviction can’t be entirely ruled out if things go badly wrong for a President Trump. The knives will be out on both sides of the aisle. Cruz’ speech today should tell you that there is a lot of seething animus among powerful Republicans for Donald Trump.

  152. @EriK

    Donald Trump has said he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists, which is illegal.
     
    Apparently it's not illegal if caused by a drone "targeting" error.

    This was a pretty thorough take:

    It’s by one of “The Intercept” crew, so take it with whatever grains of salt needed. I found it pretty convincing.

  153. @Dr. X
    I've been praying for a coup for the last 7 1/2 years, and it hasn't happened, so I it think it's just wishful thinking on his part.

    Exactly who in hell is Jamie Kirchick, anyway?? Another Harvard-Yale demigod lowering himself from Olympus to tell us lowly worms what we ought to think? Gay, too. Well that obviously makes him superior to us hetero "breeder" scum.

    Kirchick is the Lazar Kaganovich of the Republican Party

  154. @James O'Meara
    Yeah, gotta keep them Alexanders out. Otherwise, we might wind up winning a war, maybe even the whole known world.

    BTW, ever read about Gen. Washington's staff?

    Or ever ... read?

    Sorry to disappoint WN gayboys, but that’s largely a product of Oliver Stone’s imagination

    But when [p. 419] Philoxenus,73 the governor of the coast-lands of Asia Minor, wrote to Alexander that there was in Ionia a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist, and inquired in his letter whether he should send the boy on to him. Alexander wrote bitterly in reply, ‘Vilest of men, what deed of this sort have you ever been privy to in my past that now you would flatter me with the offer of such pleasures?’

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0007,087:1

  155. @Chuck
    Any inside info on Erdogan? Is he a Spanish refugee?

    Why are you asking me? Do you mean, is he a descendant of Jews expelled from Spain in 1492? And using the whole Islamic/Islamist/Anti-Israel thing as a front to keep his Judaism secret?

    Lemme check with my rabbi and get back to you. If there were such a conspiracy going on, I should be told about it considering how much I contribute to the synagogue each year.

  156. @RadicalCenter
    Trump can and should replace Pence as VP candidate when he runs for re-election in 2020.

    Trump/Trump in 2020! Perfect Vision!

  157. I am sure that there are patriots that would prevent this traitorous scheme of Jamie. May be he is already being watched. A poll was taken and 70% of the military and the Agency (John 8:32) support Trump, so Jamie is just dreaming. Where do you think that Trump got the info on Cruz that made him back out? John 8:32?

  158. @everybodyhatesscott
    Do they still hang people for treason?

    Sadly, no. Otherwise Pollard, Ames, Hanssen, Walker, etc would have been dead long ago. I would have gladly been on the firing squad or pulled the trap door lever.

  159. “If Trump wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.”

    Problem is, to pull off a revolution, you need a mass of supporters. The majority of Americans agree with America First, halting Illegal Immigration, and shutting off the flow of Muzzies.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2