Stop John Bolton – On Twitter

The battle for the soul of the Trump administration is already going full swing – and he isn’t even President yet.

The battle lines are being drawn over the office of Secretary of State, and anti-internationalist and non-interventionists in the Trump coalition are angry that former UN Ambassador John Bolton is even being considered. Bolton was an early supporter of the Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative outfit that brought us the Iraq war, and he’s been endorsed by National Review – a neocon mouthpiece that actively campaigned against Trump. His hostility to Russia, which he believes must be subjected to “pain,” flies in the face of Trump’s stated intention to “get along” with Russia.

Here’s how you can stop the Bolton nomination from getting off the ground. The Trump transition team is asking for input from the public. If you have a Twitter account, you can tweet your opposition to Bolton by directing your tweet at @transition2017.

Keep your message short, sweet, and to the point: “No to Bolton” will do, but get creative if you like.

65 thoughts on “Stop John Bolton – On Twitter”

    1. It’s v easy to join twitter, however no one will take you seriously unless you have some followers and some age to your account.

      And I’m really in the same predicament, bc I allowed my first account to be deleted.

      1. Curious about your statement. I found it not easy at all to join Twitter. First time I tried, I was discontinued on my fourth pro-Novorossiya tweet. Second time, I was tricked by a single click into following hundreds of mainstream media sources, which I could not get rid of. I was also barred from tweeting links to my own website. Next time I tried, Twitter took over my machine so I was no longer able to do certain kinds of searches. I deleted all cookies and history and never touched Twitter membership again.

        1. That is… bizarre. I did log into a blog site with my twitter account, and the site did appear to request my password. I didn’t think much of it, and I haven’t had any problems other than having the blog site added to my twitter following list.

    2. I don’t tweet or twiddle–I do twaddle, unfortunately. Yes, that would be a disaster if Bolton gets a position in the administration. I hope Trump comes to his senses and castrates the neo-cons. Actually they are more harmful to a Trump administration than the crazy precious snowflakes that are being paid by George Soros to protest.

      1. What is your evidence that anyone is paid to protest. cite documented facts, not moronic web sites.

  1. Hi, twitter keeps temp locking my accounts thinking I’m a bot. (I allowed first account to be deleted, bc they wanted phone #. I might unlock 2nd account.)

    The problem is I debate too many people at once, which twitter assumes suggests I’m a bot. Note: I’ve only ever had 1 account at a time. So, I haven’t acted wrongly.

    Anyway, who is our champion alternative to Bolton? We need a foreign policy realist. I suppose even Giuliani is better than Bolton.

      1. Just remember John McCain went to Syria and met Al Nusra leadership which then included ISIS leadership the Pictures are on the net google McCain in Syria, at that meeting he said we should be funding these people, enough said, as for Kerry he is the cause along with Hillary of this ISIS mess, Bonkers Bolton a Neo Con that has charge of negotiations over a battlefield 35 miles from the Plains of Armageddon, now that is really asking for trouble! When you tweet which I also not do remember that Bolton effectively caused the North Koreans to develop Nuclear weapons he convinced Bush to reneg on a Clinton made deal which left the Nth Korean Plutonium making power plant COLD, no Plutonium no bombs!

    1. Pat Buchanan, unless he becomes chief of staff or national security advisor.

      And Justin, since you’re talking about Twitter make “no to Bolton” a hashtag. #NoToBolton

    2. The fact that Bolton was so much involved with PNAC is a disaster in itself. I hate saying it, but why is Trump so anxious to get recognizable names (regardless if they’re neo-cons) on board with him?

      1. Loyalty. He wants a team that will work for and with him, and he’s rewarding those who stood by him.

        Regarding the Treasury, Stockman would be too ideological and stubborn. I’d love for him to get the job, but I doubt Trump would give it to him for that reason.

        Alan Tonelson did support Trump, however, so I like him as a possible Secretary of the Treasury. And someone might say he doesn’t have the right specialisation since he’s an economist. Well, he’s someone whose writing I’m familiar with.

        Paul Craig Roberts would be ideal, but he’s too old. Judy Shelton might be a good pick.

        1. But I really think people like Bolton and Woolsey will be a liability — don’t trust their so overt stances.

      2. Trump thinks he is a tough guy, and wants to surround himself with tough guys. It’s all about his image.

  2. If you guys are sincere about making America great again the least you could do is choose someone who has clout, couth and does not have negative, dark, ugly clouds floating around him. Why cannot you people choose public servants with good reputations with appropriate skills instead of psycho bottom feeders from previous administrations? What happened to draining the swamp?

    1. Because the public servants with good reputations and appropriate skills all disowned Trump during the election. He’s left with the bottom of the barrel. Also, Trump’s not bright enough to understand when someone holds diametrically opposite views to himself.

      1. You’re living in a delusion. Trump isn’t stupid, and he does have top talent.

        The problem is the antiwar folks and foreign policy realists can’t produce a champion. The lack of talent is here, not in Trump’s camp.

        1. There’s also the Skinhead connection. And Pence.
          Arguably he’s appointed to be Trumps babysitter, like Cheney with King George the 2nd. –OR– a really simple coup. Hitler had von Hindenburg , von Papen and von Schleicher, and none of them had a real majority, just a coalition like Likud gets every election. Just like the majority of Americans voted against one or the other of the duopoly candidates. It’s also a neat setup for a soft coup. Or a bloody one. I remembered Al Haig for being in my chain of command in ROTC, and Bungalow Bill Westmoreland. When Reagan got popped in the head by a bullet Haig announced he was “in charge now”.

          So Reagan fired him.
          Back to the Skinhead factor, they’re very violent mostly because they never learned civil behavior. And they’re already acting all kinds of Up even though their candidate got selected. Boys will be boys, and really stupid boys will be skinheads. They’re kind of upset now because they realize finally that the President doesn’t do much, everything really is supposed to be approved by Congress before the President can do Any Thing With It.

          And Sata…. errr, Pence is closer to their philosophy. And had enough sense to keep a low profile.

          I would call it “lurking”.

          The Skins and Klan have a philosophy that Political “correctness” (meaning doing things lawfully) means they have to accept being nothing more than equal with the UnterMenschen. And it burns their nasty little souls.
          That and they’re still crying about having lost the Civil War. It won’t be any kind of easy for either side where “either” describes more than two parties.

          Their rhetoric which they chant daily is that all others are inferior, and weaklings. Surprise, that’s just something their daddies and mommies told them to make them stfu about other people daring to have equality. They snivel and whine about it a lot.

          Doesn’t mean they’re harmless. Neither are Liberals or Anarchists.

          1. Dubya is not like Trump.

            Trump ran as the anti-Dubya candidate.

            You call Trump a fascist, yet predict there could be a bloody coup? :/

            Skinheads? The violence in the US during and after the election has been against Trump supporters and perceived Trump supporters. We’ve seen rioting by professionals and by purported Hillary supporters.

            What I think you mean to say is that you’re a fascist but have evolved into something much worse than a Nazi.

    2. Trump has picked some good names, but the foreign policy realists condemned Trump because he wasn’t respectable enough. If not for their idiocy, Trump might well have picked John Mearsheimer or someone like that.

      Trump has to hire qualified people. Antiwar kooks (whom I respect) aren’t necessarily capable of filling the position. And Trump values loyalty, wants a team he can work with.

      I would love for Justin Raimondo or Pat Buchanan or someone like that to win the position. Raimondo might be a tad too ideological though. I could see Raimondo walking out the room, grabbing a piece of cardboard, then beginning to protest his own meeting outside :p

      Trump isn’t fully antiwar, and he will very likely want to pursue some intervention against ISIS and al Qaeda, hopefully nothing else.

  3. Staggering that Trump seems to be resurrecting the Iraq war enablers. The campaign should be against Richard Grenell being UN Ambassador. Bolton probably not a factor.

    1. You never know where that mustache has been? It could be radio-active, contain anthrax particles, cultivated through a genetically modified process funded by Monsanto — whatever.

    1. Bannon is an excellent pick. He’s a marketing genius.

      Bannon’s quoted as wanting to tear the establishment down. The guy fits right in with the 1990s libertarians.

      He’s not racist.

      And the Neocons are worse than Nazis and Communists. Neocons are the greatest evil ever to walk the Earth.

  4. Although not the best choice, don’t despair if Bolton is selected. 1) Trump is always in charge, no matter who he works with. I disapproved when he selected neocon Pence, but Pence ended up having no influence on Trump’s foreign policy. 2) Trump doesn’t like yes men. He likes to work with people he’s comfortable with, but who disagree with him. I have to trust Trump’s judgment about what makes him effective. Only he knows. 3) Despite what multi-polarists pretend, China is not benign, but an enemy of freedom and a long-term threat. China, unlike Russia, has not relinquished the sovereign territories it invaded and conquered in the twentieth century, namely Tibet and Xinjiang. Trump may be thinking a hawkish Secretary of State will intimidate China and prevent its further expansion. Meanwhile, Trump is well in control of US-Russian relations, already on the road to cooperation. Bolton would likely have little effect; and 4) Trump has to choose powerful people. Given that neocons have prevailed for the last 16 years, there are few powerful anti-neocons left. A neocon choice may simply reflect that, and should not cast doubt on Trump’s intentions, which he is bound to carry out.

    1. I agree with you to a point–but if he has to deal with a whole swarm of neo-cons, even he will get overwhelmed. It is not about Bolton as an individual. It’s the Borg-activity of the neo-cons. Daddy Bush is trying to get his way no matter what. Forget about the ultra-left. They’re temporarily castrated. Neo-cons chief problem.

      1. LOL. Stephen Bannon is Trump’s (far) right-hand man. Take a look at Breitbart. You just elected a turbo-neocon – how very “anti-establishment”. Bwahahahahahha.

          1. Bannon is not a Neocon.

            From “thedailybeast”:

            Quote: “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

            Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
            “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

          2. Oh God, Luchorpan, he said that? That’s the far left globablists, dream.If Trump betrays us to the neocons, Bushes, I will wish I had not ever trusted him.

          3. I think he meant it in a non-globalist way, similar to “drain the swamp”.

            i interpret it as being rhetorical. And Bannon doesn’t seem to recall saying it anyway.

            Maybe he was trying to appeal to a Leftist, using names they’d know.

            Frequently the “Left”, at least common Leftists, sincerely believe in the environment or in helping the poor, etc. It’s the higher up Leftists who manipulate them.

            Some “Leftists” clearly voted for Trump, presumably because he promised to help the poor; and that’s what they wanted. An example of a Socialist I like reading right now is George Orwell. He was an international Socialist it looks to me, so I mean he was caught up in the movement.

            An example of a bad “Leftist”: Yellen’s monetary policy has expanded the wealth gap. Obama takes credit for the economic recovery and for helping the poor, yet he hasn’t accomplished either. And this impoverishment of Americans would set the stage for further government domination, creating a problem that needs solving.

            Similarly, Bernie wants a higher minimum wage presumably to create unemployment, which he then offers government jobs to cure. Trump wants higher market wages, which is very different.

      2. It sounds like Giuliani will be the pick. He’s far better than Bolton.

        Giuliani might be Neocon-light, but he’s appears sane and not truly part of the war cult. Bolton though appears to be a true believer.

    2. Actually NO these fools actually have significant power, and the President is NOT always in power, Secretary of State has huge resources at the secretaries OWN control! Bolton is a serious worry but there are also those in the Administrational section that were seen as Clintons likely successor as Head of the state department and at least one of those is a serious problem as well Victoria Nuland the woman who was responsible for the Ukraine Coups both of them! Five billion dollars to fund Neo Nazi groups who have also used Muslim insurgents to fight so called rebels in two Oblasts that do not want to be part of their coup uprising!

    3. SoS picks a slew of underlings who can sabotage WH policies. If Bolton is SoS, he will appoint underlings who will. Same with SoD. We recently saw Carter’s people sabotage the Syria cease fire with a planned attack on Deir ez-Zor.

  5. Competition for the Secretary of State’s post is apparently between him and Giuliani – both strong Israel supporters and neither likely to tolerate Obama and Clinton’s Iran deal for long, so that’s toilet roll.
    Anyway, I thought you lot were “anti-establishment” radicals who opposed the neoliberal establishment? All of a sudden you’re supporting the Iran deal brokered by the ultra-establishment neoliberals Obama and Clinton? LOL. This is Obama’s karma. :)

    1. Antiwar has always supported the Iran deal. And Trump has consistently upheld it.

      Trump won the election in part for his non-Neocon foreign policy views.

      Calling Obama “liberal” is meaningless. Neocons are worse than “liberals”.

      1. Trump has NOT supported the Iran deal. The best he could do was say that he would “police” the deal closely, and called it a “bad deal.” He flip-flopped, and sais he would tear it up, and now is back to “policing” and “renegotiating” the deal. Exactly which Trump should we believe?

      2. “Antiwar has always supported the Iran deal. And Trump has consistently upheld it.”

        Perhaps in some alternate universe. In THIS universe:

        “I came here to speak to you about where I stand on the future of American relations with our strategic ally, our unbreakable friendship, and our cultural brother, the only democracy in the Middle East, the State of Israel …. My number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran …. I know deal-making, and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic — for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East.”

        Donald Trump, March 22, 2016, speech to AIPAC

        1. Thanks. Well, he’s also said he wouldn’t mess with it.

          That was an odd speech by him. I’m not sure he even knew what he was reading.

    2. The Iran deal was not brokered by Obama and Clinton. It was forced on them by UK, France, Germany, Russia and China, who all wanted to trade with Iran and were tired of the games being played, with neocons constantly saying Iran was pursuing a bomb while the IAEA and the US’s own NIEs kept saying it wasn’t. Note that Total recently signed a deal with Iran. So far, US Corps are left out and you can bet they don’t like that and are agitating for an end to unilateral US sanctions.

  6. If Trump appoints Bolton to ANYTHING, he will have betrayed me. This is the influence of Bannon, a dyed in the wool neocon. Boooooooo!

  7. He owes Il Rudi for making the cases disappear, like real estate fraud and the much related Tenant Protection laws. In New York where they have a Maximum Sentence “broken windows” policy for prosecution of people convicted of stuff like Loitering. Also begging, stealing bread and sleeping under bridges. The Rich own The Courts and the Police, that’s well known but now they’re being more in-your-face open about it.

  8. Suggest Ron Paul instead. Anyone who puts forth the idea that we should treat other countries the way we wish to be treated is #1 on my list.

  9. John Bolton was brought into the picture as UN Ambassador while congress was on vacation. The people who worked with/for that character would not give him a recommendation. Those who knew Bolton all gave him a thumbs down. I remember his first visit to the UN as he intimidated genuine members. It was hard to believe that there could possibly be such an ***hole. Only Condolesa (sp?} Rice could talk President Bush into giving Bolton a free pass.

  10. Join in supporting Rand Paul and other libertarian-minded Republicans and Democrats in general in opposing Bolton. Wrong man, wrong message,wrong before

  11. Since Mr Trump won with actually fewer popular votes, and the difference was a half percent, that means neither Trump nor Hillary got an even half of the votes. That simply means that a majority of the people Voted Against Him, just as surely as a majority Voted Against Hillary. The FACT that a lot of his votes were votes AGAINST Hillary rather than FOR him, and vice versa, and that White People are supposedly the majority in the US means he didn’t even get the majority of the White vote. The FACT that he’s associated with the Skinheads, you want to argue about it, why not argue with the Dumb-ass Klan, Minutemen, Tea Party, Skinheads and other “Whites Only” TERRORIST groups about it, because they sure as Hell are claiming that. And THEY believe that Mr Trump owes them for it.

    And most of the things Mr Trump promised specifically Them, like an ethnic cleansing of America, establishing a Church State (against the expressed will of the people for 2 centuries) and therefore a State Church would have to be established…. Which church would be anointed? Just about every Christian who I asked about that said “My Church, of course”.

    The Mexican Border Wall, and Mexico would be forced to pay for it? That’s stupid of such a high order it deserves another syllable “Stee-u-pid”

    The last time the US invaded Mexico militarily was when Pershing was ordered to find and arrest and murder Doroteo Arango, aka Pancho Villa. He went, suffered casualties, and didn’t accomplish his goal. The US ARMY LOST TO THE MEXICAN PEOPLE. Hey, maybe that’s why the bigots hate Mexican and even Spanish American people so much.

    If he wants to build his racist wall, he’s going to raise taxes to do it and guess the hell what? He nor any other president has the authority to raise taxes unilaterally. It would have to go to Congress first.

    The same with his proposed War Against Americans Who He And His Loudest Group Of Supporters, (The Skinheads at Stormfront) Don’t Think Are REAL Americans. Some of the comments on this website, just in the past week, have been that quote “The Founding Fathers clearly had the Original Intent that the U.S. must be based on Western European Christian Culture”

    Let’s roll with that, yeah? The so called “founders” were arisocrats kicked out of Western Europe by Other Christian Western Europe Aristocrats. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners because they were too god-damn lazy to clear the land, plant crops, nurture crops and harvest crops.

    They’re credited separately with building Mount Vernon and Monticello. But THEY didn’t. They had the SLAVES do it. And they both have a reputation of having sex with the slaves. In other words, RAPE. There’s some really explicit lists of which Presidents were slave-owners. Including Johnson and Grant.
    And Polk, and Jackson, and more. You have to look it up.

    So why should I obey the not very clearly worded commands of a bunch of lazy, thieving, slave-holding self-righteous, pompous, aristocratic sex offenders who died 200 years ago?

    The positions that we must worship the “original intent” are not just as stupid as the beliefs of the White Supremacists, they’re exact copies.
    Trump is trying to hire Bolton BECAUSE THEY’RE INTELLECTUALLY AND POLITICALLY SIMILAR. And so are the other supremacists.

Comments are closed.