So now we're sanctioning predictions of armed insurrection by the military if Trump is elected in the mainstream media?
What can we logically expect from a hypothetical Trump presidency, as unlikely as that may be, based on what we have observed from him so far?
Constitutional fights with Congress, demonstrations that could quickly escalate to riots, allies who would be embarrassed to be seen with an American president, a U.S. military that has its doubts and could need to take some actions on its own to prevent the worst from happening, and enemies abroad who will aggressively try to take advantage of a narrow-minded, ignorant egomaniac — it all seems plausible. It sounds harsh, but it is not an extreme hypothetical of what the Trump presidency could bring.
How many members of the military does Ed Rogers know, other than the Chairforce political hacks that have too many stars and bars and too few rounds sent downrange -- or that have gone whizzing past their heads? I'll bet the answer to that is none.
Well, this commentator can't count any of the latter among his associates; I don't travel in those circles. But I do have a large number of associates and friends who have either sent or been the intended recipient of some of those rounds (the incoming ones obviously having failed to find their mark or I'd be honoring their service on Memorial Day) -- or are and have been actively employed in making sure those folks can do their jobs.
I do not know of any that have made any sort of suggestion that a Trump Presidency would lead to such an outcome -- hypothetical or otherwise. Indeed, if you want to know who evokes such a potential it's not Trump -- it's Hillary.
Not that I believe Hillary is likely to wind up precipitating that sort of outcome. At least one hopes not, as it would be outright catastrophe no matter who is sitting in the White House at the time.
That WaPo printed this is an outrage. Sure, there are bloggers out there on the lunatic fringe of one sort or another, and more than a few fiction writers, who have put forward this sort of potential for a long time. It makes for interesting reading material from time to time too.
But to see a mainstream media outlet actually go to the well to try to stoke that sort of fear among the American public in our political process reaches a new low. It's one thing to suggest that foreign policy might lead to increased terrorism risks (gee, that hasn't actually happened under Obama has it?) or even the outbreak of nuclear war (Daisy anyone?) but this sort of nonsense needs to be met with an immediate and furious response by subscribers and advertisers.
Sure, WaPo has the right to print such trash, but the rest of us have the right to use their "newspaper" as a wrapper for flaming dogshit presents intended for our least-favorite person's driveway from this point forward too.