Trump: U.S. Should Have Invaded....Mexico?

by JASmius



....instead of Iraq?  What?:

It doesn't look like RNC Chairman Reince Priebus' call for GPO presidential candidate Donald Trump to tone down his rhetoric on illegal immigration is having much [of an] effect.

Trump, meeting with Friends of Abe, the secretive group of Hollywood conservatives, on Friday, told the group the United States made a mistake invading Iraq and taking away a needed buffer with Iran, LA Weekly reports, quoting an anonymous attendee.

"Instead, we should have invaded Mexico," Trump told the group, to rousing applause, the source said.

And the count is no balls and two strikes, to borrow a baseball metaphor.  But this isn't about the "substance" of these latest Trump "arguments," because there isn't any.  This is about what Trump is doing, deliberately, to the Republican "brand".  As in, trashing it beyond recognition.

And I'm not referring to opposing illegal immigration, either.  Despite what some Tea Partiers want to believe, most of the GOP presidential field - not all of them, God knows (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, with some others in between), but most - oppose illegal immigration, and some (Rick Perry comes to mind) have actually been on the front lines of that struggle for years, whereas Trump is a Johnny-come-lately poseur at best.  Which puts most of the GOP field squarely on the side of two-thirds of the American public on the issue, including Tea Partiers.

When Reince Priebus talks about Trump "toning down his rhetoric," he may be urging Trump to adopt the Chamber of Commerce's open borders/cheap labor stance (which Trump actually does hold) or he may simply be telling Trump to stop pushing against an open door in such monumentally unnecessary a fashion.  Believe it or not, it is possible to stoutly stand against illegal immigration and amnesty and Obamnesty without calling all illegal aliens "murderers" and "drug dealers".  But that isn't what Trump is doing.

Ours is a reasonable position, in other words, that Trump is going ludicrously out of his way to make sound unreasonable.  He's intentionally making our position sound like the most over-the-top stereotypes the Left throws at us - "nativists, xenophobes, racists".  Trump is playing the role of the twenty-first century Archie Bunker-esque demagogue in order to make everybody on the Right look and sound like "nativists, xenophobes, racists".  It's as if the 2016 GOP presidential contest was a movie and Hollywood was casting the "conservative candidate".

And some TPers, hopelessly lost in their "Fight!  Fight!  Fight!" mania, are suicidally draping themselves all over Trump like the supermodels in that DraftKings.com commercial.



You're being played, people.  Suckered.  Bilked.  Swindled.  Humiliated.  "Othered".

No, I take that last one back - you're "othering" yourselves through your rank stupidity.

And Trump is laughing at you.

And Jeb and Hillary?  They've probably had to change their Depends several times already, such has doubtless been the paroxysms of their mirth.  I mean, come on, you want a man who says we should have invaded Mexico instead of Iraq to have access to nuclear launch codes?

How loopy has our side of the aisle become at this point?  Howard Dean is becoming the voice of reason:

If Donald Trump continues riding his current wave of popularity into the primary season, he could win an early state but isn't likely to last long, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean predicted Sunday....

With up to seventeen GOP candidates in the field by the time the first primary ballots are cast, Trump could win an early state with as little as 16% to 18% of the vote, Dean told host John Catsimatidis.

"He’s really a candidate who’s collecting anger," Dean said. "And the problem with that is, at the end of the day, people are not interested in electing somebody out of anger."

While Vermont [communist] Senator Bernie Sanders and Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who each are running for president as well, were elected by their State constituents out of anger, the country as a whole won't follow suit when electing someone to the White House, Dean said. [empahses added]

Captain "YEEEEAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!" is right, folks.  "Hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast, hit 'em from every angle" isn't always the best electoral approach - in fact, for the Right, it almost never is.  And the reason is what makes us rightwingers angriest of all: Because the deck is stacked against us.  Because the media is always out to destroy us, to make us look stupid and angry and "extreme" and fringe and wacko.  And the angrier and more "Fight!  Fight!  Fight!" we get, the more we reinforce their destructive Narrative of us.

And the low-information voter majority is always paying attention, and has already been convinced.

Plus, with the Trump stink clinging to whomever emerges as the GOP nominee - even Jeb - that "nativists, xenophobes, racists" Narrative will, by a year from now, be so pervasive and such an easily wielded weapon for Mrs. Clinton (or whomever), bleeding over to every other issue on the board, that it will be almost impossible for our nominee to run as a conservative;  if he (or she) does, we'll lose and lose big; if he (or she) doesn't, our angry base will once again stupidly stay home and we'll.....lose and lose even bigger, and Hillary will have coattails to boot.

This is the deep cover op that Donald Trump is executing for the "establishment" and the Dems.  And so far he's doing so perfectly, because he's got upwards of one out of every five Republican voters sticking their own heads in his noose.

Wake up, people.  Aren't you some of the same people who are always saying that we need another Ronald Reagan?  Did the Gipper ever run on anger and foolishness and deceit?  Or was his hallmark patriotism, optimism, and respect for and belief in the American people?  Do you really think that's what The Donald is portraying?