Election 2024

Trump’s Not ‘Bluffing’: Inside the MAGA Efforts To Make a Second Term Even More Extreme​

“Yes, we do really want to burn it all down,” a Republican close to Trump tells Rolling Stone
BY ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, ADAM RAWNSLEY

“OF COURSE WE aren’t fucking bluffing.” That’s the message one close Trump adviser and former administration official — who requested anonymity to speak candidly — wants to get across to the press and public, when asked about Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign vows of “retribution,” unprecedented force, and militaristic action.

Indeed, this sentiment is shared widely among the upper echelon of Trumpland and the MAGAfied Republican Party, with various officials and conservatives with a direct line to the former president insisting that so-called “moderates” or alleged “establishment” types will be tamed or purged, if Trump retakes power next year.

Rolling Stone spoke with a dozen sources who are playing roles in Trump’s “government-in-waiting” or are in regular contact with the ex-president, including GOP lawmakers, Trump advisers, MAGA policy wonks, conservative attorneys, and former and current Trump aides. They universally stress that the former (and perhaps future) U.S. president and top allies are serious about following through on his extreme campaign pledges. These promises run the gamut from siccing active duty military units on not just American cities but also Mexican territory, all the way to prosecuting and potentially imprisoning Trump foes.

Several of these sources say that a wide range of litmus tests, loyalty screenings, and “guardrails” are already being implemented, or discussed with Trump, to root out so-called “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) and MAGA-skeptical conservatives from embedding themselves within a possible second Trump administration. These processes would be largely aimed at drastically curtailing the number of squishy Republican officials who would be able to get in Trump’s ear to, in the words of one GOP lawmaker on Capitol Hill, try to “scare Trump off of what needs to be done or should be.” This lawmaker cited former senior administration officials such as Mark Esper and John Kelly who, at times, urged ....

CONTINUED

#301
Indeed.
I would not, can not "misunderestimate" D.J.

Shiftless2 said:

"... with Trump, to root out so-called “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) and MAGA-skeptical conservatives from embedding themselves within a possible second Trump administration." Rolling Stone #301

Click to expand...

Trump's 4 year presidential administration featured an unusually high if not record high attrition rate, a revolving door White House cabinet.

It seems Trump has left himself a rather shallow bench.


... VP ?

The first presidential candidate debate of the 2024 race is scheduled for 9PM/ET Thursday June 27.

Former President Donald Trump said Saturday that he wouldn't protect a NATO nation that didn't contribute enough defense funds and, instead, he'd "encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-russia-nato-defense-funds/story?id=107136736

Click to expand...

Trump makes issue of NATO member nations meeting their defense budget targets.

A Shia militia in Yemen known as the Houthis responded to Israel's War in Gaza by attacking international trade shipping in the Red Sea, threatening "15% of global trade flows through the Red Sea." Vice Admiral Brad Cooper "... a Trillion dollars a year in global trade." Norah O'Donnell

The U.S. benefits from peaceful commerce, & thus benefits from U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet operations in the Red Sea. And so do many U.S. allies and trading partners.

BUT !

Is the U.S. not providing this very expensive security in internationally traveled water for free?

So if Trump makes issue of NATO member nations not meeting member budget guidelines, is Trump also concerned about beneficiaries of our Fifth Fleet's defense of this "15% of global trade" Vice Admiral Cooper is defending?

If beneficiaries such as merchant shipping and the consumers they serve pay their fair share, would that make the U.S. Fifth Fleet mercenary?
And if beneficiaries such as merchant shipping and the consumers they serve do not pay their fair share, what then?

Will the CNN debate moderator ask Trump & or Biden if the beneficiaries of such U.S. military protection should reimburse the U.S.?

What other foreign policy question should these candidates debate Thursday night?

Is the U.S. not providing this very expensive security in internationally traveled water for free?

Click to expand...

Not at all - the member countries are paying their dues (i.e., providing the monies to keep NATO operating).

Shiftless2 said:

Not at all - the member countries are paying their dues (i.e., providing the monies to keep NATO operating).

Click to expand...

BUT !!
The amount they contribute (spend) is independent of whether the U.S.' Fifth Fleet safeguards this "15% of global trade".
And since the Red Sea is not in the North Atlantic, and since NATO's Art.5 limits NATO applicability to "Europe or North America", and since Houthis aggression is against international commerce, and not potential military conquest of sovereign territory, NATO standards may not apply.

The North Atlantic Treaty​

Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949​

Last updated: 19 Oct. 2023

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. [bold emphasis sear's]


It's considered neighborly to help a friend in need on rare occasion.
But such U.S. international involvement has become rather more the rule than the exception.

"A million here, a million there; pretty soon you're talking real money." Senator Everett Dirksen

Click to expand...

In this case Vice Admiral Cooper used $4 $Million U.S. defense missiles to shoot down $10,000 Iranian drones launched by Houthis from Yemen.

The inequity here among U.S. and partners is vivid and large scale. No disrespect to Senator Dirksen intended here, but it's not $millions, but $Billions. We know who benefits. But who pays? The U.S. tax payer,
and the U.S. military members that volunteer to protect U.S. sovereignty, but are ordered into combat to protect European consumers.

The amount they contribute (spend) is independent of whether the U.S.' Fifth Fleet safeguards this "15% of global trade".

Click to expand...

And the amounts that Trump is complaining about refers to the percentage of GDP that the nations spend on defense.

Ask yourself how much of the US military budget is spent in Europe vs elsewhere. Does that amount meet the guidelines in the NATO treaty - if it doesn't the US is as delinquent as anyone else.

- It's not a NATO operation. So NATO members meeting or not meeting their NATO membership %GDP guidelines is immaterial.
- If other NATO member nations were participating in anti-Houthis Red Sea military combat operations, they'd be exempt from this criticism.
- This inquiry isn't about meeting NATO guidelines. It's about beneficiaries of U.S. military operations providing adequate compensation for these services the U.S. now provides the world "for free".

Don Trump [R-NY/FL] and Joe Biden [D-DE] "debated" Thursday June 27, 2024.

Convicted felon Trump lied prolifically.
Cognitive decliner Biden faltered, failed.

The Republicans nearly unanimously support Trump.
Is it too late for the Democrats to substitute a viable presidential candidate? One that can not only win against Trump in November's election, but also preside the U.S. to sustained peace and prosperity?