An old colleague and I were having breakfast this morning when he looked up at the news (I can’t remember which network …MSNBC, I think) and noticed a split screen of your drunk uncle at Thanksgiving and Hillary Clint…
“I think NATO is obsolete,” Trump told ABC News on Saturday. “NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger — much larger than Russia is today.”
“There is no such thing as a former KGB man.” – Vladimir Putin
Oh really, Donald?
Quick primer – in case you don’t know why NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was formed:
NATO was formed in 1949, in short, to keep the Soviet Union in check. The chart, above, shows a decade’s worth of Russian military spending, up to the last Presidential election. Within that timeframe, now-President, ex-KGB, and USSR loyalist Vladimir Putin has grown in the ranks from Director of Federal Security Service (starting in 1998), to President of the Russian Federation. Within that timeframe, Putin, whose nostalgia for the old USSR is evident (while claiming not to re-assemble the old Eastern Bloc), expanded Russian influence and borders into Georgia, Crimea and the greater part of eastern Ukraine – all a part of his ideology within his own doctrine that he has the right to protect ethnic Russians at any cost.
This includes the territories of Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turmenistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuanua, and even Poland. For those of you who aced world history, you will recognize this as a greater chunk of the former Soviet Union and/or Eastern Bloc expansion (and the Eastern Bloc didn’t stop there). Putin, in theory, has a legitimate claim of loyalty to aiding ethnic Russians in these territories – if for nothing more than loyalty to the motherland, but the loyalist (nationalist) claim and right is a basic loophole around rebuilding the former Eastern Bloc, and history has shown he is willing to do this.
NATO’s expansion follows a similar, west-to-east, expansion of allied forces to include countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and planned expansion of other former Soviet states and territories within the rival Warsaw Pact (formed as the eastern answer to NATO). Additionally, the European Union expansion in these same territories have somewhat pitted the EU against expansion of the Russian Federation. This was seen clearly in 2014, when negotiations with Ukraine entering the EU fell apart, and Putin’s Russia answered back with a territorial expansion of influence into both Crimea and eastern Ukraine – all in the name of protecting the sovereignty of ethnic Russians in the country.
We can also give a primer on the creation of the EU, in short, as a secondary means of protection against the expansion of Soviet Russia and the spread of communism. The EU also seems to be a union of disdain for Trump – given not only his anti-EU statements as well as his support for Brexit – which also increases the Federation’s admiration of Trump. Both NATO and the EU are a thorn in the side of Putin’s Russia, both in expansion and trade, so there should be zero questions as to why Putin would speak fondly of Trump as well as endorse Trump’s Presidential campaign. A Western anti-EU Presidential nominee who cheers the possible first step in the dissolution of the EU, as well as taking an anti-NATO stance, who both believes NATO is obselete and that some countries should be left to deal with Russia?
That’s a Putin dream come true.
So we now know why Russia and Putin have built a loyalty to a potential Trump Presidency. Trump is anti-EU, anti-NATO, and has made comments that sometimes sympathize with Russia’s That’s not necessarily to say that Trump is willfully building a pro-Russia foreign policy platform (although his adoration of Putin as a leader should make one pause and question such a platform), but there are other factors that need to be examined within the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. These factors include investment deals, authoritarian stance, as well as his own campaign hirings (Paul Manafort). There are a lot of muddy waters within Trump’s history and present campaign that signal sympathy toward the Russian Federation, and we’ll discuss that in the next chapter.
Oh, the lines! The lines were so huge! The streets around Houston, Texas are so filled with my supporters! Nobody has lines like me! Believe me, I can win Texas, just look at these lines of people waiting to see me! – Trump, probably.
The Trump Rally in The Woodlands, Texas, a suburb of Houston, made headlines with the sheer length of people waiting in line just to see their hero. Lines half a mile long, with people standing and waiting after the venue had filled. Tweets were coming in estimating 10, 15, 20, 25K people, all in the Houston area to come out and see Trump. What a phenomenon.
Texas went to Cruz in the primary, and gave Trump little support. 48 delegates out of 155, with a huge majority going to Cruz. Trump boasted that he could take Texas, and would take Texas, but Texas ended up embarrassing him with barely over 25% support in the Republican Primary. Hillary won the state’s Democratic Primary in a landslide, which was expected.
For the 2016 Presidential election, Texas has been forecasted as a weak Republican hold, with Trump holding a 2 point lead over Clinton. In the past few Presidential elections, more and more of the larger, urban cities have turned blue, and with the large hispanic population, Trump may be in trouble of losing that slight, 2 point lead. So, as he rallies through the state before the Convention, what can he do to win votes?
Simple – pretend his support is yuuuuuuuge in the state.
Trumps 2 rallies in Texas this past week were in Dallas and Houston, the 2 largest cities. Two cities that have voted Democrat in the past 2 Presidential elections. If he could show a stronghold of support, he could certainly boast and brag his way into more followers, even if he did not actually gain any ground in the state since the Primary. So, operation look at these lines was put into operation.
What does this mean? Book small venues for large cities, and let the media see the people line up to see Trump.
Three days prior, Trump held a Rally in bleeding red Greensboro, North Carolina, in a stadium that held over 20,000 people. Next stop was Atlanta, in a weaker/Democratic hold city, in a venue that held less than 5000 people. After that? Dallas and Houston, both with venues holding 4600 and 5000, respectively. High population areas with relatively tiny venues means a turnout that looks record-breaking – but it isn’t.
Let’s look at the population counts here. Greensboro, NC, has a population less than 300,000. Stadium: 20,000. Atlanta, GA has a population just under 450,000. Venue: 4600. Dallas, TX has a population of 1.26 MILLION. Venue: 4600. Houston, TX has a population of 2.2 MILLION. Venue: 5000. Also worth mentioning is that Houston is the 4th largest city in the country.
So, with the short notice that Trump rallies have, the argument could be made that larger venues could not be found. Perhaps this is the case, since there seems to be little more than a week notice for each event (at least as it appears on the Trump official schedule). This isn’t the case, though. Let’s take a look at the Houston area rally, and the 16,500 capacity Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion down the street from the Waterfront Marriott.
Hmm. No events scheduled for the entire weekend. That’s odd. The Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion, literally 1/4 a mile down the street from the Waterway Marriott, was empty. Of course, with Trump’s budget running thin, maybe a larger venue would have been too expensive to rent. Well, except for the fact that the CWM Pavilion is non-profit, and has held such events as area High School graduations.
What was the effect of booking such small venues in battleground states? The illusion of support. The big story of the night for the Houston area rally was the long lines that wrapped and whipped around the area streets. In fact, at its peak, the line was almost a mile long. This led to bragging rights of 10-25,000 people in attendance, from Trump supporters that are terrible at math (even 3 abreast, a less than mile line is around 6000).
News stations and reporters took it upon themselves to dedicate picture, video, and news reports over the sheer volume of people in line for this event, waiting in line for the Trump Rally. CNN’s Jeremy Diamond, on location to cover the event, even commented that the line to the rally was the longest he’d ever seen at a rally, at 1/2 mile. Big news for Trump in the battleground state that he barely holds by 2 points.
But really – this was the plan. In 97 degree weather, and a 120 degree heat index (the city was under a heat advisory), what Trump decided was to let people sit, and sit, and sit outside to prove to people that he had the support in the state. During the event, several people had to be treated with heat exhaustion, with one woman being carried on a stretcher.
To prove he had supporters, this is what Trump decided for his supporters in Houston. Hours outside in dangerous heat conditions, knowing many would be shut out of the small venue. Yeah, sounds like he really cares about his supporters – letting them stand outside for hours during a heat advisory cautioning people to stay indoors and limit outside exposure. Go Trump. Seriously, to hell.
So, what does all this hoopla really mean? Is it really that important? Of course it is. It keeps him in the media. In fact, all throughout this circus of a primary season, his major source of advertising came through the media. He has a limited budget, which is all but gone, and is struggling to get GOP donor support. His rallies have almost become cult, with media all over the world jumping at the opportunity to cover it.
And with national support falling, and battleground states at risk, Trump does what he does best – cons the world into thinking he’s great. Over the next 24 hours, we’ll all likely be treated with the news about how many people came out to his Houston area rally, and the great, long, lines of people that poured in. With an empty venue to hold them all just a quarter mile down the street.
The Republican National Convention is the convention that convenes every four years, in a presidential election year, for the GOP to formally nominate a presidential candidate for the general election as well as adopt an official platform for the campaign. The RNC has a set of rules and guidelines that it presents at every convention, in order to properly select a nominee. This selection process, more or less, has been the processed followed by the Republican party since 1856.
Typically, if a candidate receives the majority (50%+1) of the delegate selection prior to convention, the RNC serves merely as a formality to introduce the election year candidate to the party and line out a party platform. However, when no candidate crosses this threshold, the RNC becomes more than a formality, and the selection process for the nominee adopts specific convention rules on deciding a nominee. This is called a contested convention.
In a contested convention, there are rounds of voting by delegates nominated at the state/county/district/at-large level toward the delegate they are bound to by state rules. If there is no consensus for a candidate in a contested convention, the RNC would move to a brokered convention. This is where the rules committee can adjust rules to fit the atmosphere, and every candidate can broker deals with delegates in a back-room style in order to secure the majority of delegates needed and win the nomination.
What is important here to note is that, in a brokered convention, the candidate is still responsible for gaining the delegates needed to win the nomination, since they failed to in the primary season. Basically, the Convention rules allow the voters to choose the nominee by majority, and if that does not occur, then the delegates will choose the nominee at convention. This process has been followed for years, much of it dating back to the first convention ever held in 1856.
These are the basic rules, folks, and these are the rules that the RNC will follow in 2016.
Contrary to what Trump supporters may want to believe, Donald Trump is essentially demanding that the rules be either ignored or changed to benefit him if he does not secure the nomination outright by amassing 50%+1 delegates. That’s right. He wants to circumvent the rules and be automatically handed the nomination if he reaches a plurality, but not the majority. This is not how the RNC operates, though, and voters need to understand what Trump is demanding (now, with threats of riots )is a rule change.
Candidates cannot outright demand a rule change. Candidates, like both Trump and Cruz have stated, cannot promise a rule change at convention. These claims are simply nothing more than campaigns for themselves, in an attempt to secure a nomination before convention. They are not factual, and they are not within the control of candidates directly. Committee members can act on behalf of candidates, but this is not their decision to make outright.
The controversy that is surrounding talks of a contested or brokered convention at the 2016 Republican National Convention shouldn’t even exist, because each candidate still maintains the responsibility to secure the needed number of delegates before the actual convention – whether it be by an outright allocation of 50%+1 delegates, securing that number in a contested convention vote, or brokering deals that give them that number in a brokered convention.
We live in a democracy, even if one of our Presidential candidates would like to forget that, and we still have a voice as constituents of this nation. We also have the power of the vote, both for the Presidency as well as all elected offices in the land. These people we elect are not only our representatives, but our public servants. It is their duty to perform their job based on the calls of their citizens.
With that being said, those that oppose Trump can weigh in with your elected officials in Congress and let them know that any Trump endorsement will cost them a vote in the next election. Currently, there are 24 Republican Senators up for re-election in 2016, and only an 8 member majority in the Senate. Please make the pledge to contact your elected Senator in your state and let them know that they will lose your vote if they endorse Trump.
In the House, every seat is up for re-election every year. That’s 229 Republicans on the ballots this year, with a 44 member majority in the House. Contact your House Representative to let them know the same. You will not accept Trump, and any endorsement or pledge to Trump will be a vote that they lose. For the #NeverTrump movement in California, New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, you already have House members that have endorsed Trump:
Right now, if you live in these states, I urge you to contact Duncan Hunter of California, Chris Collins of New York, Tom Marino of Pennsylvania, or Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, and let them know your disappointment in their endorsement. Let them know that they do not represent your views, and that they lost a vote in their re-election bid. Urge others to do the same in your community. Contact their opponents and let them know that the incumbent lost a supporter, and ask what their pledge is in the election.
If you’d like to be proactive and stop another endorsement, you can contact your representatives in Congress to let them know their Trump support will cost them a vote.
My sample letter (feel free to copy or use as a guide to write your own):
I want to thank you for not pledging support for, or endorsing, current Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
I do not feel that Mr. Trump is fit to serve this country as President. I feel his campaign is bringing the ugliest part of America to the stage, and it is dangerous for the Republican party, as well as our country.
I feel his domestic policy grows the federal government and shrinks state control. His economic policy will be costly, and will not serve to grow this country. The tariffs have been tried and have failed. His immigration stance is inhumane and unfeasible. His foreign policy is dangerous, and I fear it will get us into unnecessary conflict.
As a registered Republican in Texas, I vow not to support Mr. Trump in any way, shape or form. I will not vote Republican in the election if Mr. Trump receives the nomination. I will vote for the Libertarian or Democratic candidate.
Further, I will not support any of my elected officials in future elections if they pledge support for or endorse Mr. Trump in any way. That means 1 less vote in future elections.
I hope you take my opinion and the opinion of the rest of your constituency into consideration when it comes to pledging support and endorsing a Presidential candidate for 2016.
We’ll next examine local officials who have pledged support and/or endorsement for Trump. We’ll get to that tomorrow, however, because the work needs to be done on the national level first. Please commit to contacting every Congressional representative in your state and jurisdisction that is up for re-election in the 2016 election cycle. Please let them know that you do not support Trump in any way, shape or form, and use your vote to get them to pledge the same.
This is the power we have, so let’s use it!
The Super Tuesday, part Two primaries (or, rather, the Ides of March primaries) gave almost a landslide victory of delegates to Trump’s campaign – primarily due to winner-take-all and winner-take-most primaries held in Florida, Illinois, and Missouri, while still hovering around the 35% popular vote. Last night’s loss in Florida also caused Marco Rubio to suspend his campaign and effectively drop out of the race. And then there were three. John Kasich earned his first state victory, with his home-state winner-take all primary in Ohio. This move was the move that most pundits thought would all-but-secure a brokered convention. It still may, but that they failed to recognize was the damage to be done by the winner-take-most states of Illinois and Missouri.
This year’s election really calls for some scrutiny in winner-take-all primary contests. Perhaps a few states need to re-examine their delegate selections for the future. Perhaps the GOP needs to examine the primary schedule and delegate allottment. Forget immigration reform, the new top platform of the GOP should be election reform. A candidate with a simple plurality of popular vote shouldn’t be the one winning it all – especially if the candidate is not part of the ideology of the party. But, that’s neither here nor there. Moving forward, anyone against Trump winning the nomination needs to start committing to that cause.
Why? For a very simple reason: Donald Trump is a Fascist, at least as close to the very definition that democracy can afford. This is not hyperbole, folks. Fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic far-right system of government that pushes militarization of its country and citizens. Donald Trump utilizes strict control and suppression of dissent at all his rallies, banishing opponents who speak out against him, denying certain members of the press who are critical of him when reporting. He favors suppression of the free press by threatening to open libel laws to make it easier for Government to sue journalists and news media. He demands protesters be arrested at his rallies for protesting.
Additionally, he touts and pushes the agenda of nationalism by creating opponents and dissenters as the enemy to his followers. He creates an almost militaristic society of citizens behind him when he demands they get tough, and that America gets tough. He doesn’t outright demand a nationalistic, militaristic society, but his rhetoric echoes the sentiment with very sharp and poignant undertones. He’s actively creating a divide of good versus evil based on minority and race affiliation, when he supports mass-deportation, calls that ethicity a group of criminals, rapists and murderers, then turns around and threatens bans on entire religions. He pushes the racial divide by talking about the good old days, where protesters could be oppressed with violence.
And his latest threat? Warning the Republicans that there will be riots if he is not chosen at convention. Trump’s plan to unite the Republican party and move forward in the election is to threaten violence if he’s not chosen. This isn’t a warning. This is a threat. He’s speaking to his audience, his followers and supporters, when he makes this statement. He’s suggesting what to do if he’s blocked from nomination. Speaking out like that in a public interview – that’s him speaking to America. That’s him telling us what will happen if we reject his nomination. This isn’t democracy he’s playing anymore, he’s clearly crossing the line.
That’s Fascism. And that’s leading the Republican party right now.
So what can stop this? People need to start speaking up, and demand that the GOP take action. We need to contact our elected officials at EVERY level and voice our concerns. We need to contact our GOP officials at the country, district, state, and national level to insist this Fascist be stopped. We can’t have a candidate that uses threats of violence to bully his way into the candidacy. This has reached a fever pitch, and it’s time to start demanding someone stop this. First steps: contact your officials. Demand a pledge to block his nomination. Demand an investigation by the FBI on his warnings of violence if he’s not elected. I can’t see how this is being ignored. Demand the RNC take these threats seriously.
Contact the media, as well. The media (primarily, NBC, ABC, CBS, as well as Fox, MSNBC, and CNN) has failed to report and document the seriousness of Trump’s campaign of violence and hateful rhetoric. If they don’t report these threats by their obligation, then they will continue to fail us. Contact your newspapers. Contact your local media. Urge that they responsibly cover the violent and hateful rhetoric that Trump’s campaign is expending to the public. Responsible reporting and coverage of Trump’s campaign is necessary. No more opinion. No more judgement. No more of anything but direct coverage and direct broadcast of what Trump is saying and the danger behind it.
Next? If you are among the states that still have yet to hold a primary, please do your research on polling for each candidate. If Cruz polls better in your state, vote for Cruz and campaign for Cruz. If Kasich polls better in your state, vote and campaign for Kasich. We’re at a point that saving the election from Trump is more important than voting for our favorite candidate. And for the love of God, please stop voting for candidates that have dropped out, and please urge others to do the same. There is a time and place for making a symbolic statement, and now is not that time or place. Now is the time to unite behind one of the two candidates that polls the best in your state to oppose the Trump vote.
Democrats and Independents, we need your help now more than ever. A record number of your representation voted in Tuesday’s Ohio Primary to give Kasich the edge over Trump. This is the bipartisan effort this country needs to stop Trump from nomination. Currently, Hillary Clinton leads Sanders almost 2-1 in the delegate count. Clinton currently needs a mere 34% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Watch the polling for your primary, and if it’s a victory for Clinton or well above 33%, considering voting for the top polling Republican that can take votes away from Trump. If Clinton secures the nomination in the next month, please strongly consider voting against Trump if your state Primary is open.
Many Democrats may be relishing in this current battle being fought by Republicans, but there are reasons you shouldn’t. The first reason being that this country should be represented by the best, no matter what. This country should support nominees who are the best in their respective fields. This means actual alignment in the party of their affiliation. This country needs representatives from both sides in order to keep democracy alive. And right now we’re talking about a Fascist who doesn’t even have close to majority popular vote backing. This should worry each and every one of you, regardless of how strong you believe the Democratic candidate will be, because most states in the election are winner-take-all, and the election is decided by electoral votes, not popular vote.
Trump is taking over the Republican party right now with around 35% of the popular vote. Think about that one. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t even register a single vote in blue states, if he can garner the majority vote in Red and swing states. If he can take the Republican party by force and threat, with just 35% of the vote, what do you think he’ll employ to forcibly take the national election? Tactical voting for Trump in order to have him run against Hillary or Bernie is not a smart move. He needs to be stopped before it gets to that point. So, if you are a Democrat or Independent voting tactically, please don’t underestimate the force of a Fascist candidate.
Donald Trump has called protesters at his event disruptive, troublemakers, bad people, violent. He’s called them jobless, taunted them for being a minority, accused them of being bullies, and other harsh words. He calls them this not because they are really disruptive, or troublemakers, or anything else, but simply because they disagree with him. Because they don’t want him to run for President, or be the Republican nominee.
We’ve seen enough videos of Trump rallies to see the atmosphere. It’s energized, loud, people yelling and screaming, holding up signs, and chanting during his speeches. It’s not uncommon for supporters to yell out and scream in support of Trump while he’s talking. Peole get fired up. It’s not a quiet tea party, where or a movie theater where everyone is cautioned to be quiet while he speaks. So, really, a protester yelling or holding a sign is doing nothing different from his supporters. They are not being disruptive in their actions.
In the first few months of the Republican Presidential primary race, this is what the protesters did. They did not organize numbers; they appeared individually, or in small handfuls – just as the Trump supporters did. They brought signs and worse shirts that showed their dissent, just as supporters brought signs and wore shirts (and hats) of support. There is not one single action that any protesters took part in that wasn’t done by supporters. They were just saying something a little different than the crowd.
How is that a disruption? How is someone yelling at a crowd full of people yelling? Someone holding a sign in a crowd of people holding signs? How is it any different from protesters that do the same at other Primary rallies for other candidates? The message. The dissent. The showing that this citizen disagrees with what you have to say. There’s nothing more to it. There’s nothing bigger, on the protesters side. The problem is, actually, with the supporters at the Trump rallies across the nation. Here’s a quick video clip of two protesters at an event in January:
These were the protests early on in the campaign. That’s how it started. This is just one video, but there are plenty more out there to show exactly what’s shown here. A few people, randomly scattered about, holding signs. Not punching anyone. Not getting in people’s faces. Not doing anything differently than the crowd around them. And what caused the disruption in this video? The Trump supporters that sat in the crowd around these two protesters. They called them names, told them to shut up, ostracized them, and tore their signs. The supporters pointed them out and called for the removal. Because they disagreed. And in this video, they were being nice.
The issue with this is twofold – these images caused protesters to begin to organize and form groups, and the Trump rhetoric concerning those who disagreed with them grew more virulent. The first part of the issue has grown into what we see now – hundreds, if not thousands, of organized protests occurring at Trump rallies. There’s a reason for that – safety in numbers. What was once a regular showing at any political event has become threatening and violent, primarily because the supporters have no tolerance for dissent, and Trump preaches that ideology further.
The second part of that issue should make us all pause, and really listen to the things Trump says about these protesters. We’ll move beyond the issue of free speech and right to protest. Instead, we’ll focus on the needs, and utter sense of urgency to remove any and all aspects of dissent at Trump rallies in this campaign, who those protesters represent, and why Trump’s rhetoric to his adoring fanbase (let’s face it, these are people more star struck with the celebrity and the brand than the politician) should offend us all.
First of all, the amount of intolerance that Trump and his supporters have for dissent is troubling. There’s no discussion or discourse of why you should give me a chance by Trump, or why Trump is the better candidate by his fans. There’s simply intolerance for anyone that disagrees. It’s not the protesters – it’s the message that is so intolerable to Trump and his fanbase. The absolute refusal to think there is another way, or another idea outside of what comes out of Trump’s mouth. Trump’s created this isolation free from dissent that creates a general intolerance and disbelief for anything negative associated with Trump – both inside and out of the rallies.
The reason why this is disturbing, and the reason why this should worry us all is that the protesters at these rallies are a symbol of every person that doesn’t feel Trump is fit to hold the high office. We’ve seen the early protests – it wasn’t because they were acting up or being disruptive. They weren’t. Their simple existence at the rally is what causes the disturbance and disruption at the rallies. There’s a zero-tolerance for any dissent zone within those boundaries. Any one of us could head off to one of these events, and run the risk of being ostracized and shoved out, or even assaulted, if we dare speak our mind.
This is the culture Trump is creating. When he states the protesters are disruptive, are trouble makers, are bad people and not what makes this country – not a part of the culture that built this country, he is speaking that about all of us who disagree with him. He’s calling us all names. He’s saying we’re all what is wrong with America , because we disagree with him. He’s creating a veritable lynch mob out of his fans, who feel every bit entitled to not just disagree with anyone that doesn’t support Trump, but to call those people names, harrass them, and disparage them out in society.
We’ve seen it – on message boards, in public, and certainly at the Trump rallies. Trump has created an army whose motto is us against them. And that them is the rest of the population that disagrees. Trump is attacking the general population with these words and with these calls to get rough, and to treat others as the enemy – friends, family, community members, all of them the enemy because of dissent. How will that ever work out on the national scale?
And really, let’s break down the numbers. For the voting population so far, there have been almost 21 million voters that have taken part in the Primary elections thus far, all parties combined, and we’re just hitting the halfway point. Out of these almost 21 million voters in this country, less than 21% of the entire voting population has shown up to vote for him. That’s over 79% that chose someone else. Now, maybe you are thinking that measuring it this way is a little unfair, since the primaries are split by party, but it’ really reflective of the actual support Trump has.
If we want to take a look at the Republican numbers, it’s not head over heels better, and it’s certainly not close to any overwhelming majority. out of the almost 13 million voters who have shown up to vote in the Republican primary, that number is less than 35% total support, as opposed to more than 65% opposition. The delegate count, based on numerous factors other than a proportional split, tell a different story, but the actual support hasn’t really grown over the past several weeks. It won’t grow, either. Not by percentage of the popular vote.
So we have an overwhelming majority of Americans and Republicans that have said, no thank you to Trump at the booth, yet he continues to spew this divisive and hateful rhetoric against dissent. All of us, guys, not just the protesters. The protesters are just making an appearance. Trump is creating an army of hate against anyone that disagrees with him, and we’ve all seen this in one way or another. There is no attempt to even try to unite or try to see the other side – it’s a bolsterous, bullying campaign that states my way or you’re the enemy.
That’s the troubling factor coming out of all these protests, and the way that protesters and dissenters of Trump’s platform are being treated. That is how Trump feels about those who don’t agree with his vision. That’s not democracy, it’s demagoguery. That’s the approach used by dictators and authoritarian leaders. That’s Trump tellling a small population of this country that the majority is the enemy. We need to move beyond this narrow scope of how Trump and his fanbase are specifically treating the protesters and recognize what it means for all of us. His hate isn’t geared simply toward protesters – it’s geared toward dissent.