<Grin>! Hey Geoffrey! "Uni-Party" works well! We all understand it and I will start adopting that term!
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, geoffrey theist <gtheist...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't see how nobody saw this coming. I will refer to the culprits as > the uniparty because Keith's label is just to damn many words to type :) > when stepinopolis or whatever tried to pin Romney on the contraception > issue followed by the war on women that was when the rhetoric from the > establishment started on the path of diminishing returns. They just tried > to misdirect the Trump campaign by bringing up the birther issue and got > their heads handed to them. > And now the never Trump globalist traitors from the republicans continue > to shoot themselves in the foot.just call me deplorable..... > > On Sep 18, 2016 1:06 PM, "'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum" < > politicalforum@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> I agree completely, Keith. And I also think these "Never Trump" morons >> are 100% deluded if they think they won't pay for what they are doing now >> in 4 or 8 years and possibly beyond. >> >> The battle lines have been drawn. Either you accept the status quo of the >> establishment/political/ruling totally disconnected career politicians from >> BOTH parties, or you don't. And there is no way in hell half of Trump >> voters will ever forget or forgive or excuse the attacks from the sore >> losers in the GOP who - even if they didn't want to support Trump - didn't >> have the common sense to shut the F up and keep it to themselves. >> >> Kasich, Cruz, ALL of the Bush family, Flake, Graham - all of them have >> absolutely ZERO chance of doing anything but whimpering and bitching and >> losing national elections in the future. >> >> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> Like Gottfried, I'm not nearly as kind or forgiving as Limbaugh. I once >>> was, and believed that we needed to regroup after the Convention, but the >>> attacks by the "#NeverTrumpers" became too intense, personal and nasty. >>> >>> They've made their bed, and I want them to go and lie in it. >>> >>> More importantly, the thing that Limbaugh I don't think realizes, and >>> Gottfried doesn't touch upon, is the proverbial light that Donald Trump has >>> shown on that particular faction of the Republican Party. We've all known >>> that they were there; we just didn't realize how despicable they were! >>> That whole Globalist/Elitist/Establishment/Rockefellerian/New World >>> Order" crew I can never support again. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:53 AM, MJ <mich...@america.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *"But in the case of the never-Trumpers, I would never make this >>>> criticism. Here we are dealing mostly with GOP shills who four years ago >>>> were drooling on cue over Mitt Romney and who four years earlier were >>>> gilding the lily for John McCain. What exactly were the high “conservative” >>>> principles that these candidates of the never-Trumpers articulated that >>>> Trump has failed to express?" *September 16, 2016 >>>> >>>> *DAVID LIMBAUGH AND EXTOLLING THE NEVER-TRUMPERS * >>>> *What exactly are the high “conservative” principles of Romney and >>>> McCain that Trump has failed to express? *Paul Gottfried >>>> >>>> A few days ago David Limbaugh, a widely-syndicated Republican >>>> commentator (and Rush’s less fiery younger brother) posted a commentary >>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/> intended to deescalate >>>> the tensions between Trump’s supporters and the “never-Trumpers.” Limbaugh >>>> defines himself as a “reluctant Trumper,” who decided to support the Donald >>>> as the lesser of two evils after his preferred candidate Ted Cruz stumbled >>>> in the primaries. Limbaugh does not hide his dislike for Trump’s >>>> free-wheeling rhetoric and believes that the GOP nominee’s critics on the >>>> right may be fully justified in doubting his “genuine commitment to >>>> conservative policies.” >>>> >>>> Despite these doubts, Limbaugh endorses Trump for reasons that one also >>>> hears from Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Larry Elder, and >>>> yours truly. Trump has “many incentives to implement our [conservative] >>>> policies,” while Hillary Clinton has absolutely none. He is also, not >>>> incidentally, bestowing on the Republican Party a large working class >>>> constituency; and even among racial minorities, he is doing at least as >>>> well, and in the case of prospective black voters, better than his GOP >>>> centrist predecessors, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Moreover, it is hard >>>> not to see Trump’s focusing on the problems of illegals and sanctuary >>>> cities as anything other than a “conservative” issue. That remains the case >>>> even if most of his primary competitors and certainly the editorial board >>>> of the *Wall Street Journal* might wish those issues had never been >>>> brought into the primaries. >>>> >>>> Although Limbaugh dutifully provides the reasons that someone claiming >>>> to be on the right should vote for Trump, he still can’t resist extolling >>>> the never-Trumpers. (Although they’re not my buddies, they may be his.) >>>> These supposedly principled conservatives deeply believe that “the best >>>> chance of saving the nation in the long run is to avoid elevating Trump to >>>> president and leader of the party because he could forever destroy >>>> conservatism and the Republican brand.” Although Limbaugh concedes that >>>> some establishment Republicans may be found among these noble idealists, >>>> most of the never-Trumpers “shared our frustration” about where the party >>>> was headed in the hands of unprincipled operators. Limbaugh closes his >>>> remarks with this statement: “I respect the never-Trumpers and will not >>>> presume to judge them as abandoning the nation’s best interests.” >>>> >>>> It is of course possible to be so principled that one refuses to settle >>>> for politicians who don’t entirely live up to one’s ideals. About ten years >>>> ago I addressed a club named for the great conservative Republican of an >>>> earlier era Robert A. Taft. During my interaction with members I found that >>>> some of them would only vote for a leader who patterned himself on the >>>> organization’s namesake. Although I continue to refer to myself as a “Taft >>>> Republican,” I thought some of the young people I spoke with held >>>> unrealistically high expectations. >>>> >>>> But in the case of the never-Trumpers, I would never make this >>>> criticism. Here we are dealing mostly with GOP shills who four years ago >>>> were drooling on cue over Mitt Romney and who four years earlier were >>>> gilding the lily for John McCain. What exactly were the high “conservative” >>>> principles that these candidates of the never-Trumpers articulated that >>>> Trump has failed to express? Indeed Trump has raised social issues that >>>> Romney and McCain, who were hailed as “conservatives” refused to even touch >>>> on the campaign trail. Unlike them, he has promised to appoint >>>> “conservatives” to federal judgeships and to protect the religious liberty >>>> of devout Christians, who have been beaten from pillar to post by Obama and >>>> who are not likely to be treated any better under a Clinton presidency. >>>> >>>> Although one may be justified in questioning the genuineness of Trump’s >>>> commitment to certain conservative principles (and right now I am troubled >>>> by his support of a six-week maternity leave proposal that would inflict >>>> unfair costs on employers), it is doubtful whether the never-Trumpers are >>>> all inspired idealists. Roughly the people Limbaugh is referring to can be >>>> divided into two types: establishment Republican propagandists and >>>> neoconservative partisans and dependents. The two types often merge (as >>>> with Bret Stephens, Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg); in other >>>> cases (e.g., Katie Pavlich, Cal Thomas, Bill Murchison, and Eric Erickson), >>>> we’re talking about GOP establishmentarians who became never-Trumpers in >>>> line with their professional duties. I won’t even get on to the topic of >>>> those academic “conservatives” who flaunt their hatred of Trump at >>>> gatherings financed by neoconservative donors. Since at least some of these >>>> “conservative” scholars also significantly hold positions financed by >>>> neocon patrons, we may conclude that they’re only doing what is expected of >>>> them. >>>> >>>> Among the never-Trumpers whom Limbaugh does not get around to are such >>>> unappetizing defectors to the Left as Max Boot, Robert Kagan and Jamie >>>> Kirchik. These publicists were not content to show their true colors and >>>> in the case of Kagan, his well-established ties, through his wife Victoria >>>> Nuland, to the Obama-Clinton administration. These defectors have befouled >>>> the political landscape with their reckless denunciations of Trump as a >>>> “fascist.” I won’t bother to place former secretary of state Colin Powell >>>> in the category of recent defectors. Although a nominal Republican, Powell >>>> enthusiastically backed Obama in two presidential races and was denouncing >>>> the Milquetoast party of McCain and Romney as racist before he turned his >>>> fire on Trump. >>>> >>>> I’m also not surprised that Kirchik, a renowned neocon-hitman known for >>>> his vicious attack on Ron Paul as a Nazi sympathizer and raving >>>> anti-Semite >>>> <https://newrepublic.com/article/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry>, >>>> has now gone back to his smearing talents. Kirchik has criticized Hillary >>>> Clinton for limiting her denunciation to only one half of her opponent’s >>>> backers. He insists in an interview with the*Daily News *that “it’s >>>> not 50% of Trump supporters who are bigots.” The “basket of deplorables >>>> <http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/james-kirchick-hillary-basket-deplorables-article-1.2788830>” >>>> whom Hillary denounced last week “is closer to 100%.” Kirchik may be the >>>> most repulsive of all the grotesques who have moved from the neocon camp >>>> into Hillary’s baggage. Honest disagreement seems entirely foreign to his >>>> nature. A peripatetic nudnik, he manages to get into the news by denouncing >>>> those who think differently from him as an existential danger to his Jewish >>>> gay identity. As in his condemnation of tens of millions of Americans, >>>> including many readers of this website, Kirchik seems to believe that by >>>> depicting anyone he doesn’t like as a “bigot,” he can always earn applause >>>> and make a living. He is a gift to the Hillary campaign that our side >>>> should be delighted to hand over. >>>> >>>> The never-Trumpers undoubtedly believe they’ll survive professionally >>>> even if the Donald pulls it out. And as much as it disgust me to say so, I >>>> think they may be right. No matter what happens in this race, we’ll see the >>>> same faces on Fox-news and the same hacks writing for the establishment >>>> conservative-Republican press. Perhaps helping to contribute to a Trump >>>> defeat by blackening the candidate and urging others not to vote for him is >>>> a less risky career move than openly defecting to Hillary. Despite my >>>> doubts in this matter, I would like to imagine that the outright defectors >>>> will suffer particularly if Trump wins. But unfortunately they’ll still >>>> find takers for their services; and (alas) Kirchik will still be amply >>>> rewarded for smearing whomever he puts into his “basket of deplorables.” >>>> >>>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264203/david-limbaugh-and-ex >>>> tolling-never-trumpers-paul-gottfried >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
