Trump has no idea what he's up against

Three years ago I wrote that there would never be another Republican president again:

No one, and I mean absolutely no one, in the Democrat party is in the slightest interested in reining in Obama's expansion of executive diktat because they know what few of the rest of us are awakening to: the Democrats are never going to lose that executive authority again. Let me be clear, with a promise to elucidate another day: there is never going to be another Republican president. Ever.

The media will not examine Obama's imperialist manner because they do not want to. They agree with it. The courts are literally unable to enforce their rulings contra this administration; Obama ignores them at will and without consequence. The Republicans are dominated by the Political Class and lack the numbers, influence, collective will and ideological conviction to rein in the administration even if they had the ability to do so, which they don't.

Obama knows that he does not need to make anyone "happy," that there in fact is no political base that must be appeased or pleased - where else will the base go? The president of the United States is now quite literally a dictate-er: he orders what he wishes and implements what he chooses.

When the Left gets power, they never let go. Trump is the Republican anti-Republican but he has no idea what he's up against. Start here, for instance. Manipulating U.S. Elections: 10 Ways Voting Is Being Hacked by the Left.

Why anyone thinks that this November will feature an honest election is beyond me. In Marxist (which is to say, Democrat) thinking, elections are supposed to be rigged.

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore. (Paul Saba, 1980, "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State".)

The entire orienting point of elections in the Democrat party is not to give the people the power to decide anything, but to make them think they do. Think not? Two names and I rest my case: Sanders, Wasserman-Schulz.