(And I also agree with everything you just wrote.....I hope we're finished
with the whole "Birther" Discussion or at a minimum, let's focus on the
Clinton 2008 Campaign who was in the game full bore!)



On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> <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.

Reply via email to