SYNDICATED COLUMN: It’ll Probably Be President Trump secret is contrarianism. Since the conventional wise men of the corporate mainstream media are almost always wrong, you’ll almost always be right if you bet against them.

The MSM take on Donald Trump is a rare exception to the rule. They’re scared and so am I. They’re right to be frightened. He’s an unconscious fascist, less like Hitler the careful schemer, more like Adolf’s mentor Mussolini, who cobbled together a little bit from the socialist left and a lot from the nationalist right, winged it as he noted which lines got the most applause, and repeated those.

The trouble with Trump isn’t his policies. He hardly has any. Those he has are so vague as to be laughable (see: the Mexican-financed border wall, mass deportations, etc.)

His temperament is the threat. Hillary Clinton hasn’t met a war she didn’t like, but it’s easy to imagine Trump starting one — maybe a big one — accidentally. Trump has so much contempt for the system, the job he’s running for, and the American people, that he hasn’t bothered to study up on the issues. If he took real estate this seriously, he would have gone bankrupt even more often.

Here’s some irony: America finally elects the magic businessman as president — which we’ve been told for years would be awesome — and securities markets tank in reaction to the uncertainty he creates.

Trump, used to getting his way all the time, is a bully. A president convinces. An authoritarian orders you. Do what he says, or else. This November, nothing less than the American political system is at stake.

So it’s time to get real.

The establishment types are still in denial. Wake up, idiots!

At this writing, Trump is my odds-on favorite to win in November. Things could change. But that’s where we’ve been for months and where we are now.

Because they didn’t think Trump could win the nomination, the party’s efforts to stop him have come way too little, way too late. Mitt Romney 2.0? Paul Ryan? Seriously?

Looking back, pressuring Trump and the other candidates promise to support the eventual nominee and forswear a third-party/independent candidacy rates as one of the stupidest political maneuvers of all time. Now the Republicans are stuck with the dude.

Not that the Democrats are blameless. Barring a miraculous EmailGate-related indictment or the eruption of some new scandal-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton will probably be the Democratic nominee. Thank you, DNC! And she’ll be a disaster. Head-to-head match-ups have consistently shown that she’s weaker against Trump than Bernie Sanders.

Trump is hardwired to find the weak spots in his opponents. He’ll have a field day demolishing Clinton’s candidacy, which is constructed on a pair of fantasies: that her long resume equals a list of impressive accomplishments, and that her record of supporting right-wing wars and trade agreements means she’s secretly a progressive longing to race out of the gate to keep “fighting for us.” Remember what he did to Little Marco Rubio.

Trump will blow up Hillary’s BS over and over and over. And there’s a lot of BS to blow up.

Hillary’s support is wide but shallow. Sure, some Bernie voters will dutifully Feel the Hill. But many Democrats, the ones who got into the Bern because they couldn’t abide Clinton, will not. DINO Hillary is to Trump’s right on war and trade and probably on Israel too. The #BernieorBust movement could leave enough progressives sitting home on election day or casting their votes for the Green Party’s Jill Stein to put Trump into the White House.

Should/can Trump be stopped? Yes, but not by the Republican Party. The GOP’s Stop Trump stampede — the anguished editorials, the cable-news rants, the pompous insider scolds, tens of millions of dollars in SuperPAC-funded attack ads that even smear his wife as a slut — is counterproductive, playing into the framing of a guy who sells himself as an establishment pissing-off outsider.

The Stop Trump movement within the GOP is undemocratic to the point of making me want to retch. Trump has a commanding lead against rival Ted Cruz (680 delegates to 424, 37% of the popular vote to 27%). Considering that Trump began the race against 18 other candidates, the establishmentarian talking point that he can’t get 50% of the vote is absurd. 37% is a commanding lead, and talk of pulling out some nothing guy who didn’t even run (Ryan, Romney) in second-round voting at the Republican convention is an insult to those who voted for Trump and to democracy itself.

The raison d’être for GOP anti-Trumpism is insane: he’s not a “real conservative” — this proto-fascist, they say, is too far left for their party.

If Republicans are serious about stopping Trump, they should pledge to support the Democratic nominee for president — with their votes, their PR machines, their SuperPACs and campaigning in person.

If the Democrats are serious about stopping Trump, they should Stop Hillary.

(Ted Rall is the author of “Bernie,” a biography written with the cooperation of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. “Bernie” is now on sale online and at all good bookstores.)

36 thoughts on “SYNDICATED COLUMN: It’ll Probably Be President Trump

  1. Yes, Sanders’ path to the nomination looks like it can only happen by some sort of an asterisk involving Clinton being forced to back out, but the math still is not insurmountable. It’s tough math, but it isn’t like he has to win by a 90% margin in every single state.

    • Hillary Clinton stayed in the 2008 race against Obama long past the time most thought she had lost, saying, Remember Robert F. Kennedy.

      Hillary was never one to let a little ghoulishness get in the way of her dreams of success.

      Watch out, Bernie.

  2. I figured President Trump back in September or so. Wish I had called it here. Don’t see how he doesn’t get it without shenanigans or foul play. I mean it’s possible he’s made his peace with the Deep State. I just find it hard to believe someone the Shadow Government doesn’t want could actually be elected. I mean our elections have (always?) been shams.

      • Dems won’t show up at the polls. And I am pretty sure you yourself have pointed out as much before. Then there’s also all the Republican voters who swear they won’t go for Trump but will come around by November.

  3. I was taken by the quaint notions that the GOP has ANY commitment whatsoever to “democracy” or that Generalisssima Clinton might be indicted (with “corroboration” by a New York Post article, written by a FOX business writer, that essentially outlines why it would be impossible.)

  4. > this proto-fascist, they say, is too far left for their party.

    He’s a racist, sexist, homophobic rich white man. A child of privilege who grew up thinking that he was better than other people just ‘cuz his daddy had money. That’s pretty much dead center for today’s GOP.

  5. Instead of “racism” to describe this phenomenon of American society, I much prefer the term, “white supremacy.” Both liberals / democrats and conservatives / republicans have this attitude of white supremacy or white centrality. Big white daddy knows best. White Man’s Burden.

    When it comes to liberals though, they think it’s okay to treat somebody like a nigger as long as you don’t call him one.

    • Ye-e-ess all the black liberals in this country think the white man is superior. And all the white liberals who’ve worked for equal rights devoted significant portions of their lives to something they didn’t believe in in the first place. And all the interracial marriages are a myth.

      . :: rolls eyes ::

      Unlike Russians, who never, ever discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed, or religion.

      You’re scraping at the bottom of the barrel this time.

      • I’m not Russian. Actually, I’m a bit upset with Russia. I thought that they were moving back toward the Left somewhat, but the Orthodox Church is gaining a lot of power there it seems.

      • Putin respects the cohesion, order, and morality that traditional Christianity can offer, as do I, though I’ll never believe myself. Russia will become stronger for it.

      • Okay, Prole – you mentioned I was “slippery as a snake” (which I won’t dispute- snakes are dry skinned)

        Yet you opened with a blurb about prejudice, I replied about prejudice, and you completely evaded the point with an irrelevancy. I did not assert that you were Russian in the post; I merely used the group you are always holding up as an example – but also followed up with your other two exemplary groups.

        Once again, we see your intellectual dishonesty at work. You make a highly exaggerated claim about the US, completely ignoring the fact that prejudice is alive and well in your favorite countries. When confronted with facts, you try to change the subject.

        Now that’s slippery.

    • Or Chinese

      The fact of the matter is that racism and other forms of prejudice exist in all countries, no matter how civilized. But of course, you concentrate only on the US.

      Your obvious bias undermines what little credibility you would otherwise have.

    • So let’s talk about gay rights in Russia, shall we? You guys are still entrenched in homophobia.

      • Actually, they just believe children shouldn’t be subject to gay agitation and propaganda and that only straight (i.e. healthy) people can naturally create families. And they rather need help demographically they can get with a lower than replacement fertility rate.

      • Right, that’s what I said. “Homophobia”

        (although I have to note that you are conflating issues. Nobody disputes that it takes one spermatozoa and one ovum to create a blastocyst.)

  6. It won’t be Trump. A large chunk of Americans are deeply stupid, sure, but stupid suicidal.

    My money is on the GOP denying him the nomination and him running as an independent. And I have to believe that the vast majority of voters will be mature enough not to throw away their country so they can express their feelings about Hillary. Yes, even the idiot #BernieorBusters will cave- it costs nothing to say you’ll act like an idiot and then do the right thing in the voting booth, after all.

    • I would love to see it play out the way you’ve described. But this is the same gang of idiots that elected Reagan & Bush. Twice!

      • @CrazyH-

        “I would love to see it play out the way you’ve described. But this is the same gang of idiots that elected Reagan & Bush. Twice!”

        Small correction: Bush was not elected. For sure in 2000, and IMO there was enough evidence of shenanigans to justify a full investigation which wouldve , IMO found he was not elected then either.

      • @Whimsical

        I concede – you’re right, Bush was not elected.

        Long after the dust settled, the Associated Press reported that “Bush Won” – but the story underneath said “unless you counted the votes the way they were intended, in which case Gore won – but that’s not important right now”

        Shenanigans included ballot boxes tossed in drainage ditches, creatively miscounted votes, and GOPrano operatives granted access to the back room denied to the “Democratic” representatives.

        I should have said that “voted for” as opposed to “elected.” The gang of idiots voted for Reagan and Bush. Twice. (sometimes twice in the same election 😉

    • Whimsical,

      I have one disagreement on this. The presumption that Trump and HRC will be significantly different is not one I accept as an assertion. That doesn’t mean I’m an idiot or vindictive or hate women. It means that I don’t see any substantial differences between a HRC presidency or a Trump one.

      HRC’s starting position is that Universal Healthcare is simply not possible. Now think about that. Seriously. JFK told us that we were going to send people to the frickin’ Moon — a thing NO ONE had managed — and bring those people back — another thing NO ONE had done — and it would take no more than to the end of the 1960s.

      Universal Healthcare is a fact, an undeniable reality, in pretty much all of Europe. Even countries we don’t think of as “wealthy” have universal healthcare.

      And Hillary “I’m gonna fight like hell for you” Clinton’s position is that this simply cannot be done.

      Is it unreasonable then to assume that the following statements are NOT in the offing?
      “A liberal Supreme Court nominee is simply NOT POSSIBLE in this political climate. I have to nominate a moderate who will shift the court toward the right.”
      “If I don’t accept this weakening of abortion rights, the Republicans could block other bills. We have to accept a temporary restriction in abortion access in order to guarantee that in the future, abortions will be readily available.”
      “Although I think, personally and morally, that climate change is real, in order to keep the Republicans from blocking this legislation to impose a reduction on CO2 emissions starting in 2055, I have to allow drilling in the National Parks. I’m fighting for you, though.”

      Nothing about HRC convinces me that once she gets her crown fitted, that she’ll do a single, solitary thing that isn’t pre-approved by her corporate ownership.

      • Well, my link’s been moderated out or eaten twice. So, Ill leave it out this time

        “I have one disagreement on this. The presumption that Trump and HRC will be significantly different is not one I accept as an assertion.”

        Thanks to bad luck/excessive moderation, you’ll have to google the proof yourselves, but here’s just one way they’ll be profoundly different: Trump has said he WILL use nukes.

        So to quote someone on twitter whose name I don’t recall: “I’ll vote for Hillary over Trump because I’m a one issue voter. And that issue is not opening the 7th seal and ushering in the Apocalypse.”

        I get it Alex, I do. You are certain that Hillary WON’T do what she says she’ll do. Well, I’m willing to bet you’re wrong because I am certain Trump WILL do what he says he will do -and the consequences of that will be so much worse.

        “HRC’s starting position is that Universal Healthcare is simply not possible”

        No, HRC’s starting position is that Universal Healthcare is simply not possible AT THIS TIME”, which is completely and utterly correct.

        We are at least 3-5 election cycles away from removing enough Republicans to make taking the next step towards Universal Health Care viable, let alone achieving the whole enchilada.

        And please don’t blather on about “the will of the people”. If the will of the people was to support universal health care, Republicans who oppose it would be losing their elections by landslides over multiple election cycles.

        Instead people like yourself and Ted are advocating tactics that help Republicans win. And when you help Republicans win the message you broadcast (loudly) over the only channel politicians listen to is that the will of the people is to support Republican policies.

        The first step in getting progressive policies enacted is to convince politicians that the will of the people supports progressives. And you’re never going to do THAT while Republicans keep winning.