Trump orders the elimination of the Republican Primaries

[Spectrum]

Wouldn't be surprised if 2020 ends up being a bigger disaster for the GOP than the 2018 Midterm elections. This guy is obviously deteriorating rapidly. He'll be in full dementia meltdown by mid 2020. He won't even be able to do the Presidential debates

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/republicans-cancel-primaries-trump-challengers-1483126

President Donald Trump speaks at a February 2018 Republican National Committee meeting. | Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

2020 ELECTIONS

Republicans to scrap primaries and caucuses as Trump challengers cry foul
The moves, which critics called undemocratic, are the latest illustration of the president's total takeover of the GOP apparatus.


By ALEX ISENSTADT


09/06/2019 05:00 AM EDT


Updated 09/06/2019 11:14 AM EDT

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Trump campaign. Aides have worked to ensure total control of the party machinery, installing staunch loyalists at state parties while eliminating potential detractors. The aim, Trump officials have long said, is to smooth the path to the president’s renomination and ensure he doesn’t face the kind of internal opposition that hampered former President George H.W. Bush in his failed 1992 reelection campaign.

Trump aides said they supported the cancellations but stressed that each case was initiated by state party officials.

The shutdowns aren’t without precedent. Some of the states forgoing Republican nomination contests have done so during the reelection bids of previous presidents. Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

“As a general rule, when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, there’s no rationale to hold a primary,” McKissick said.

Perhaps the closest comparison to the present day is 1992, when George H.W. Bush was facing a primary challenge from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan. Several states that year effectively ditched their Republican contests, including Iowa, which has long cast the first votes of the presidential nomination battles.

Buchanan said in an interview that the cancellations overall played little role in his eventual defeat, adding that Bush won renomination “fair and square.”

But Buchanan said he was rankled by what he described as a concerted and ultimately successful GOP-led effort to prevent him from appearing on the South Dakota ballot. Buchanan said he felt confident that he could perform strongly in the conservative state, whose contest came just days after a New Hampshire primary that he performed surprisingly well in.

federal inmate received 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary.

 

[PsiBorg]

They're sowing the seeds for civil war, that's what they are doing. Everyone is divided, and "trust" is no where to be seen. Reason is no where to be seen. Take away people's opportunity to vote, and take away their guns along with it... yep, anarchy is soon to follow.

They're itching to institute Martial Law... Then tRump will be King.

 

[easy_b]

They're sowing the seeds for civil war, that's what they are doing. Everyone is divided, and "trust" is no where to be seen. Reason is no where to be seen. Take away people's opportunity to vote, and take away their guns along with it... yep, anarchy is soon to follow.

They're itching to institute Martial Law... Then tRump will be King.

They could have pulled this off in the 80s and 70s but now you cannot this......again this is why a lot of Republicans are retiring

 

[Camille]

I thought the RNC announced they were going to do this his first year in office. I'm pretty sure I read the plans for this shortly after he was elected.

 

[PsiBorg]

They could have pulled this off in the 80s and 70s but now you cannot this......again this is why a lot of Republicans are retiring

In the 70's and 80's people were not as divisive as they are now. They may not have agreed with a candidate's politics, but once the candidate won, people were able to go about their lives for the most part.

Some people haven't gotten over the fact that tRump is in office. It doesn't help matters that he seems to be a bumbling idiot. Republicans know that they've sold their constituents out. That's really obvious with them (Dems have as well, but it's more subtle). So, it just makes sense that they grab all that they can carry at this moment, then step away. It doesn't make sense to run and be called tRump's puppet and professional brown-noser everywhere you go. How can you defend tRump to your constituents?

 

[easy_b]

In the 70's and 80's people were not as divisive as they are now. They may not have agreed with a candidate's politics, but once the candidate won, people were able to go about their lives for the most part.

Some people haven't gotten over the fact that tRump is in office. It doesn't help matters that he seems to be a bumbling idiot. Republicans know that they've sold their constituents out. That's really obvious with them (Dems have as well, but it's more subtle). So, it just makes sense that they grab all that they can carry at this moment, then step away. It doesn't make sense to run and be called tRump's puppet and professional brown-noser everywhere you go. How can you defend tRump to your constituents?

Are you kidding me

 

[Drayonis]

I thought the RNC announced they were going to do this his first year in office. I'm pretty sure I read the plans for this shortly after he was elected.

Yup, I mentioned this a long time ago. They already said they would eliminate the primaries to keep challengers away from him.

Fucking pathetic

 

[donwuan]

They're sowing the seeds for civil war, that's what they are doing. Everyone is divided, and "trust" is no where to be seen. Reason is no where to be seen. Take away people's opportunity to vote, and take away their guns along with it... yep, anarchy is soon to follow.

They're itching to institute Martial Law... Then tRump will be King.

Take away their guns? Do you know how cheap guns are right now? Do you it's easier than ever to get a gun right now? This party is not taking away anyone's guns no matter what.

 

[HeathCliff]

 

[PsiBorg]

Are you kidding me

Look, people are always going to be on both sides of an argument. Black issues won't gel with white issues. But now, you have white people versus white people when it comes to governing. Farmers helped put tRump in, and his policies are killing them. This guy is Commander in Chief, and his pick for Secretary of Defense thinks he's as idiot. Tell me of a time (other than the Civil War) when the U.S. as a nation was more divided than now?

 

[PsiBorg]

Take away their guns? Do you know how cheap guns are right now? Do you it's easier than ever to get a gun right now? This party is not taking away anyone's guns no matter what.

I agree that the Republicans will be the last party to try to take away anyone's guns. But, if the government decides that all of these guns are a threat to the top 1%, you'd better believe that they will try to institute policies that will erode our rights to have them.

WalMart is going to stop selling certain types of ammo and guns. What??? They are in the heart of the South. Law makers are attacking the 2nd Amendment at every turn out here in California.

And, not to mention, they are all afraid of Black people having guns legally... They'd rather see a crook with a gun, than a law abiding Black Man with one.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Good, the primaries consist of politicians code signaling and pandering to the feebleminded, religious extremist. I wish I could flaunt and ignore the laws without repurcussions.

 

[donwuan]

I agree that the Republicans will be the last party to try to take away anyone's guns. But, if the government decides that all of these guns are a threat to the top 1%, you'd better believe that they will try to institute policies that will erode our rights to have them.

WalMart is going to stop selling certain types of ammo and guns. What??? They are in the heart of the South. Law makers are attacking the 2nd Amendment at every turn out here in California.

And, not to mention, they are all afraid of Black people having guns legally... They'd rather see a crook with a gun, than a law abiding Black Man with one.

Walmart stopped selling guns around here a long time ago. And there are much better stores to buy ammo. Online is best. Half your theory is out the window homie.

Walmart stopped selling assault-style weapons in 2015 and raised the minimum age to buy firearms and ammunition to 21, from 18, in 2018. It stopped selling handguns everywhere but in Alaska in 1993, and ended its sales of rifles like the AR-15 in 2015.

 

[Multi - P Limited]

I agree that the Republicans will be the last party to try to take away anyone's guns. But, if the government decides that all of these guns are a threat to the top 1%, you'd better believe that they will try to institute policies that will erode our rights to have them.

WalMart is going to stop selling certain types of ammo and guns. What??? They are in the heart of the South. Law makers are attacking the 2nd Amendment at every turn out here in California.

And, not to mention, they are all afraid of Black people having guns legally... They'd rather see a crook with a gun, than a law abiding Black Man with one.

 

[sammyjax]

Look, people are always going to be on both sides of an argument. Black issues won't gel with white issues. But now, you have white people versus white people when it comes to governing. Farmers helped put tRump in, and his policies are killing them. This guy is Commander in Chief, and his pick for Secretary of Defense thinks he's as idiot. Tell me of a time (other than the Civil War) when the U.S. as a nation was more divided than now?

Civil rights Era
Vietnam

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

From the article:

The shutdowns aren’t without precedent. Some of the states forgoing Republican nomination contests have done so during the reelection bids of previous presidents. Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

“As a general rule, when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, there’s no rationale to hold a primary,” McKissick said.

 

[PsiBorg]

Civil rights Era
Vietnam

People were divided, but not enough to take up arms. Civil Rights: peaceful protests for the most part. The aggression was coming from the white side of the aisle.

Vietnam: again people were divided but not enough to take up arms.

I'm of the opinion that tRump is not going to want to leave office, even if he loses. The politicians are not going to help anyone, because they are making a killing while he's asleep at the wheel.

People are going to have to make tough decisions, and we know that the vast majority of people don't have a clue. It's proven that poor whites will vote/act in opposition to their own self interest. Then where are we as a people? Do we stay passive, and hope that passive resistance works? Or, do we do something different? I don't have the answers, I'm just speculating for myself.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

Look, people are always going to be on both sides of an argument. Black issues won't gel with white issues. But now, you have white people versus white people when it comes to governing. Farmers helped put tRump in, and his policies are killing them. This guy is Commander in Chief, and his pick for Secretary of Defense thinks he's as idiot. Tell me of a time (other than the Civil War) when the U.S. as a nation was more divided than now?

There's been plenty of times.

Civil Rights Movement, The revolutionary war (Where a good chunk of Americans moved to Canada), the gilded age's anarchist movement which led to President McKinley's assassination, the labor movements of the 1930's etc.

IMO most of this country's divisions are highly exaggerated. Most Republicans, Democrats, and non-affiliates want the same basic things from their government (Affordable healthcare, wage security, environmental protection, etc). Trump might seem popular when CNN shows him speaking to big rallies of adoring fans, but in reality his movement is dying.

Most of this "us vs them" impression is fueled by targeted social media propaganda and media created 'outrage culture'. Both the left and the right report stories that are controversial, but relatively unimportant (i.e. a careless celebrity tweet or Corey Booker being vegan) and blow them way out of proportion. Then they report on how pissed off everyone is which gives us all the false idea that we're part of some cultural war for the soul of the country.

Turn off the news and ignore your social media feeds for a week. I guarantee that you will come out of it feeling much more hopeful and optimistic.

 

[PsiBorg]

There's been plenty of times.

Civil Rights Movement, The revolutionary war (Where a good chunk of Americans moved to Canada), the gilded age's anarchist movement which led to President McKinley's assassination, the labor movements of the 1930's etc.

IMO most of this country's divisions are highly exaggerated. Most Republicans, Democrats, and non-affiliates want the same basic things from their government (Affordable healthcare, wage security, environmental protection, etc). Trump might seem popular when CNN shows him speaking to big rallies of adoring fans, but in reality his movement is dying.

Most of this "us vs them" impression is fueled by targeted social media propaganda and media created 'outrage culture'. Both the left and the right report stories that are controversial, but relatively unimportant (i.e. a careless celebrity tweet or Corey Booker being vegan) and blow them way out of proportion. Then they report on how pissed off everyone is which gives us all the false idea that we're part of some cultural war for the soul of the country.

Turn off the news and ignore your social media feeds for a week. I guarantee that you will come out of it feeling much more hopeful and optimistic.

I hope you're right...

 

[sammyjax]

People were divided, but not enough to take up arms. Civil Rights: peaceful protests for the most part. The aggression was coming from the white side of the aisle.

Vietnam: again people were divided but not enough to take up arms.

I'm of the opinion that tRump is not going to want to leave office, even if he loses. The politicians are not going to help anyone, because they are making a killing while he's asleep at the wheel.

People are going to have to make tough decisions, and we know that the vast majority of people don't have a clue. It's proven that poor whites will vote/act in opposition to their own self interest. Then where are we as a people? Do we stay passive, and hope that passive resistance works? Or, do we do something different? I don't have the answers, I'm just speculating for myself.

Ok when you say take up arms, what do you mean? Peaceful protests for the most part? Man that's ridiculous, that was one of the bloodiest times in American history, giving way only to actual wars.

You said people are more divided now than any time besides the Civil War, when we haven't reached the high water mark of the Civil rights Era yet. And if taking up arms is the metric, we haven't done that now either so idk what you're basing your statements on.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

People were divided, but not enough to take up arms. Civil Rights: peaceful protests for the most part. The aggression was coming from the white side of the aisle.

Vietnam: again people were divided but not enough to take up arms.

I'm of the opinion that tRump is not going to want to leave office, even if he loses. The politicians are not going to help anyone, because they are making a killing while he's asleep at the wheel.

People are going to have to make tough decisions, and we know that the vast majority of people don't have a clue. It's proven that poor whites will vote/act in opposition to their own self interest. Then where are we as a people? Do we stay passive, and hope that passive resistance works? Or, do we do something different? I don't have the answers, I'm just speculating for myself.

People didn't take up arms during the civil rights movement?! Are you for real?

MLK was assassinated. Malcolm X was assassinated (by Black men no less). Many of these peaceful protests you speak of were only made possible by Black militias that kept the Klan and the American Nazi Party at bay behind the scenes.

Of course Trump isn't going to want to leave office if he loses. No president does.The real question is "what are we willing to do to make him leave?"

My prediction is that he will lose 2020 and in his final month as president he will resign so that Mike Pence can pardon him. Maybe not for everything. but enough so that he can spend his golden years riding out his state indictments on appeal.

The toughest decision we have to make is how we are going to survive this shit storm.

 

[PsiBorg]

Ok when you say take up arms, what do you mean? Peaceful protests for the most part? Man that's ridiculous, that was one of the bloodiest times in American history, giving way only to actual wars.

You said people are more divided now than any time besides the Civil War, when we haven't reached the high water mark of the Civil rights Era yet. And if taking up arms is the metric, we haven't done that now either so idk what you're basing your statements on.

I agree... it was a bloody time, I'm not belittling that at all. But, I feel that we as Black people we were not as aggressive as we could have been then. How many whites were bloodied versus how many Blacks? Maybe that's why we survived, cooler heads prevailed in light of the adversity.

Look, I'm just trying to figure out. I'm not a super scholar or anything of the sort. I'm worried about my people, my family, and myself. I know that right now, if shit hit the fan, I will not be a man of peace. So, I'm hoping that smarter people will get this bring this thing together.

 

[darth frosty]

 

[michigantoga]

White folks....